Telangana High Court
WP/3495/2006 of K.Sivarami Reddy, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Nellore, on 29 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3495 of 2006 ORDER: Petitioner is the owner of plot No.133 in Sy.Nos.598/1 & 598/2 of Magunta Layout, Nellore town. He submitted an application in the year 2003, with a request to accord permission for construction of a building. The
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:
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWrit Petition No.3495 of 2006
Petitioner is the owner of plot No.133 in Sy.Nos.598/1 & 598/2of Magunta Layout, Nellore town. He submitted an application in theyear 2003, with a request to accord permission for construction of abuilding. The erstwhile Municipality accorded permission on 01-01-2004 for construction of ground and two upper floors. Twoyears thereafter, the petitioner submitted a revised plan dated 19-08-2005 for construction of 3[rd] floor also. The MunicipalCorporation, which has come into existence in the place ofMunicipality, issued a notice to the petitioner, and demolished the 3[rd]floor on 24-02-2006. The petitioner seeks a declaration to the effectthat the inaction on the part of the respondent in considering therevised plan, and the demolition of the 3[rd] floor is illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional, and prays for a direction against the respondent, notto make any further demolition.
Heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, andlearned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner constructed ground and two upper floors on the basis of permission accorded by the Municipality. In case hewanted to add third floor, he ought to have applied for it, and waited tillthe permission is accorded. However, he has simply submitted a so-called revised plan, and proceeded to make construction. Obviously, itis illegal and the respondent has demolished the objectionableconstruction, duly following the prescribed procedure. No exceptioncan be taken to it.
The plea of the petitioner that deemed permission has accrued to him, cannot be accepted at this stage, when the premises havealready been demolished. Even now, he can make a fresh applicationand take further steps, depending on the outcome of the same.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall beopen to the petitioner to make construction of the 3[rd] floor,p2p afterobtaining permission from the respondent.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.29-12-2009.
KO
________________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.