WP/28510/2009 of DR SONTI USHA RANI Vs VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION on 31 December 2009

Order:

In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the demand made bythe respondent-Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, vide proceedings bearingNo.Rc.G.BPS.No.5385/2008, dated 03-11-2009, demanding an amount ofRs.5,44,064/-, towards penalization charges, for regularization/penalization ofthe building constructed by her in deviation to the sanctioned plan.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, a Doctor by profession, that she is theowner and possessor of the building bearing Door No.

29-23-5/2, situated at Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. On theground that constructions made by her are in deviation to the sanctionedplan, the petitioner has applied for regularization/penalization of suchconstructions by remitting an amount of Rs.10,000/- vide applicationNo.BPS-5385/2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that though therespondent-Corporation ought to have calculated the penal charges byapplying the rates as applicable to residential buildings, but, on the groundthat she is running a hospital/clinic in a part of the building, by calculatingpenal charges at the rates which are applicable to commercial buildings, therespondent-Corporation demanded an amount of Rs.5,44,064/-, which,according to her, is not correct and she is not liable to pay the said amount. On receipt of the impugned demand, it is stated that the petitioner hassubmitted a detailed representation dated 19-11-2009, disputing such demand.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G. Jhansi, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent-Corporation.

4. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, it appears, the dispute is only with regard to quantum of penalizationamount payable by the petitioner for regularization of the building constructedby her in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The impugned demand is madepursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, by applying the ratesas applicable to commercial buildings. As much as the petitioner hasalready submitted a representation, after receipt of the impugned demandfrom the respondent-Corporation, it is a matter which has to be examined bythe respondents, whether the demand made is in conformity with the rateswhich are notified as per the scheme for regularization of the buildings constructed in deviation to the sanctioned plan. In that view of the matter, Ideem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

The petitioner is permitted to file a further detailed representation withina period of four weeks from today giving the details of the rates which are tobe charged and the amount payable according to her for regularization of theconstructions made in deviation to the sanctioned plan. On filing suchrepresentation, the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation shallexamine the same, by looking into the contents of the representation alreadysubmitted, and the further representation, and pass appropriate orders,giving the details of balance amount payable by the petitioner. Tillappropriate orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner, no furthersteps shall be taken for demolition of the constructions which are subjectmatter of the application filed by the petitioner.

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

December 31, 2009MRR

______________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J