Telangana High Court
WP/20857/2009 of Smt. M. Sunitha Vs The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.20857 of 2009 Between: Smt M.Sunitha ... PETITIONER(S) and The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation rep by its Municipal Commissioner, Karimnagar and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THIS THE 29[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009
W.P.No.20857 of 2009
Between:
Smt M.Sunitha
and
... PETITIONER(S)
The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation rep by its MunicipalCommissioner, Karimnagar and others …RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYW.P.No.20857 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Petitioner and the 4[th] respondent are the neighbours inKattarampur area of Karimnagar Town. The 4[th] respondent hasundertaken construction of a building in her premises. The petitionerearlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11316 of 2008 allegingthat the complaints submitted by her on 10.03.2008 and 07.04.2008raising objection for the construction were not take into account by theMunicipal Corporation. The 4[th] respondent pleaded therein that shesubmitted an application under BPS scheme for regularization of theconstructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan and unless thesaid application is disposed of no punitive action can be taken againsther. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.11.2008 directing that theMunicipal Corporation shall initiate steps against the 4[th] respondent,depending upon the outcome of the application filed under BPSscheme. The Writ Appeal No.1568 of 2008 filed by the petitioner wasdisposed of on 05.08.2009 almost upholding the orders passed by thisCourt in W.P.No.11316 of 2008. This writ petition is filed alleging thatthe 4[th] respondent has proceeded with the construction and though asmany as four representations were made in August 2009, no actionhas been taken thereon.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned StandingCounsel for Municipal Corporation for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned counsel for 4[th] respondent.
This is the second round of litigation as between the petitionerand the 4[th] respondent in relation to the construction undertaken by the latter. The petitioner alleges that the construction is being made incontravention of the building bylaws. The 4[th] respondent also admits that there are certaindeviations. However, she has filed an application to give her thebenefit under G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31.12.2007. The scheme itselfprovides that till such application is disposed of, the MunicipalCorporation shall not take any punitive action. Therefore, it cannot besaid that the respondents 1 to 3 did not commit any illegality in notproceeding against the objectionable construction undertaken by the4[th] respondent. Pendency of an application under BPS scheme is animpediment for them to take further action. The matter cannot be keptpending indefinitely.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st]respondent to take up the application submitted by the 4[th] respondentfor regularization, along with the objections raised by the petitioner,and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. The nature of action to be initiatedagainst the concerned shall depend on the outcome of such exercise.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J