WP/34718/2011 of Bhashyam Srinivas Vs The Commissioner, on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.34718 OF 2011

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of therespondent in issuing proceedings bearing B.A.No.1/2008/G1, dated 09-11-2011, under Sections 452 (1) & (2) and 461 of the GreaterHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), asarbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent not todemolish the existing constructions made by the petitioner near DoorNo.15-4-242 and 243 situated at G.N. Mada Veedhi, Tirupathi, ChittoorDistrict.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writpetition may be stated as follows:

The petitioner is General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of theaforementioned property. The GPA was executed by his brother on02-07-2005 for development of land and for contesting any legalcomplications. He made an applications on 07-05-2010 and 08-09-2010 to the respondent Corporation seeking permission to constructstilt + 2 floors of the building for residential purpose. The respondentCorporation granted permission vide proceedings dated 13-09-2010and pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner constructed theresidential building. While the matter stood thus, the impugnedproceedings were issued by the respondent Corporation stating thatthe building construction is contrary to the sanctioned plan and that thethird and fourth floors were constructed without obtaining permission,and accordingly called for explanation of the petitioner within a periodof seven days, failing which, the said constructions will be removed bythe Corporation. After receiving the impugned notice, even though thepetitioner submitted her explanation on 01-12-2011, the respondentCorporation is trying to remove the structures. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that thepetitioner constructed the building after obtaining permission from therespondent Corporation and that the deviations pointed out in theimpugned order are incorrect and hence, he prays to issue a directionto the respondent Corporation not to demolish the existingconstructions made by the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent Corporation contended that there are certain deviations inmaking the constructions and that appropriate decision would be takenin pursuance of the impugned notice and hence, he prays to dismissthe writ petition.

5. The allegation is that the petitioner has constructedadditional two floors contrary to the sanctioned plan and hence, theimpugned notice was issued.

6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing therespondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the impugnednotice duly considering the explanation of the petitioner within a periodof three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till adecision is taken and an order is passed, the constructions made bythe petitioner in Door No.15-4-242 and 243 situated at G.N. MadaVeedhi, Tirupathi, Chittoor District shall not be demolished. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

____________

K.C.BHANU, J

January 06, 2012.KTL