Telangana High Court
WP/29110/2009 of Dr. Parvathaneni Krishna Mohan, Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, on 31 December 2009
R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.29110 of 2009 Date: December 31, 2009 Between: Dr. Parvathaneni Krishna Mohan, S/o. P. Nageswara Rao, and another … Petitioners And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Vijayawada … Respondent Order: In this writ
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.29110 of 2009
Date: December 31, 2009
Between:
Dr. Parvathaneni Krishna Mohan, S/o. P. Nageswara Rao,and another … Petitioners
And
Vijayawada Municipal Corporation,Represented by its Commissioner,Vijayawada … Respondent
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:
In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the demand madeby the respondent-Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, vide proceedingsbearing No.Rc.G.BPS.No.3210/2008, dated 03-11-2009, demanding an amount of Rs.4,58,111/- towards penalizationcharges, for regularization/penalization of the building constructed by them indeviation to the sanctioned plan.
2. It is the case of the petitioners, wife and husband and Doctors byprofession, that they are the owners and possessors of the building bearing Door No.29-7-39, situated at Vishnuvardhana Rao Street, Suryaraopet,Vijayawada. On the ground that constructions made by them are indeviation to the sanctioned plan, the petitioners have applied forregularization/penalization of such constructions by remitting an amount ofRs.49,873/- vide application No.BPS-3210/2008. The grievance of thepetitioners is that though the respondent-Corporation ought to havecalculated the penal charges by applying the rates as applicable toresidential buildings, but, on the ground that they are running a hospital/clinicin a part of the building, by calculating penal charges at the rates which areapplicable to commercial buildings, the respondent-Corporation demandedan amount of Rs.4,58,111/- which, according to them, is not correct and theyare not liable to pay the said amount. On receipt of the impugned demand, itis stated that the petitioners have submitted a detailed representation dated10-12-2009, disputing such demand.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners for regularization of the buildingconstructed by them in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The impugneddemand is made pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioners, byapplying the rates as applicable to commercial buildings. As much as thepetitioners have already submitted a representation, after receipt of theimpugned demand from the respondent-Corporation, it is a matter which hasto be examined by the respondents, whether the demand made is inconformity with the rates which are notified as per the scheme forregularization of the buildings constructed in deviation to the sanctionedplan. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
The petitioners are permitted to file a further detailed representationwithin a period of four weeks from today giving the details of the rates whichare to be charged and the amount payable according to them forregularization of the constructions made in deviation to the sanctioned plan. On filing such representation, the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation shall examine the same, by looking into the contents of therepresentation already submitted, and the further representation, and passappropriate orders, giving the details of balance amount payable by thepetitioners. Till appropriate orders are passed and communicated to thepetitioners, no further steps shall be taken for demolition of the constructionswhich are subject matter of the application filed by the petitioners.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
December 31, 2009MRR
______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J