Telangana High Court
WP/24354/2004 of Smt.Rudraraju Parvathamma, Vs The Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 24354 of 2004 Between: 1. Smt.Rudraraju Parvathamma W/o Bangarraju, R/o Flat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24354 of 2004
Between:
1. Smt.Rudraraju Parvathamma W/o Bangarraju,R/o Flat No.C-8, Dutch Layout, Seasurf Apartments,Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam.
2. Smt.Kalidindi Krishna Kumari W/o K.Neelakanteswararaju,R/o Flat No.C-8, Dutch Layout, Seasurf Apartments,Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam.Represented by their G.P.A. holder Sri P.V.L.Padmanabha Raju.
AND
…. PETITIONERS
The Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. …..RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice in U.C.No. 122/2004 ACP-II dated25.10.2004 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, contrary to the provisions of theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and in utter violations of principles of naturaljustice and consequently direct the respondent not to desist the petitioner fromproceeding the construction as per the plan approved by the respondentCorporation.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.SUBBA RAOCounsel for Respondent : Mr.T.S.VENKATARAMANA, Standing Counsel The Court made the following:
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 first petitioner claims to be owner of a building constructed in an extent of 854Sq.yds. and second petitioner claims to be owner of 158 Sq.yds. covered by Plot No.MIG-12, Kirlampudi Layout, having purchased the same through a registered saledeed dated 20-10-1984 and 31-12-1984. The petitioners are stated to have obtainedbuilding permission from the respondents vide proceedings dated 13-8-2004 forconstruction of apartment consisting of stilt floor for parking, ground floor plus fourupper floors. On obtaining permission, the petitioners claim that they startedconstruction and laid the first slab by the end of September, 2004. While so, a noticedated 25-10-2004 was issued to the first petitioner, and he submitted an explanationto the same on 27-10-2004. The petitioners allege that without conducting anyinspection and without following the due process contemplated under law, theofficials of the respondents on 2-12-2004 attempted to dismantle the constructionsmade by the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.S. Venkataramana for respondent-Municipality. Both the counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition atthe stage of admission.
Inasmuch as it is contended by the petitioners that they are making the constructionas per the approved plan, and in fact, they have also submitted their explanation tothe notice requesting the respondent not to take hasty steps without conductingproper enquiry of the construction made by them, I deem it appropriate to dispose ofthe writ petition directing the respondent to conduct an inspection of the site of thepetitioners in which they are making construction, and thereupon pass appropriateorders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law,expeditiously, and till such time, they shall not take any coercive steps to demolishthe constructions made by the petitioner.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Date: 28-12-2004.
______________N.V. RAMANA,J.
Note: Issue C.C. today.
B/o
Tvk
To
1. The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,Visakhapatnam.
2. 2 CD copies