WP/19812/2008 of B. Nagasayana Reddy Vs Anantapur Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, on 29 December 2009

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.19812 OF 2008

In view of the request made by the learned counsel forpetitioner, as well as the learned Standing Counselappearing for the 1[st] respondent-Municipal Corporation, andalso the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, thiswrit petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for directions byway of Mandamus, declaring the construction permissiongranted by the 1[st] respondent-Municipal Corporationin favour of 2[nd] respondent for making constructions in the premises bearing Door No.28/5/355, MIG 239 of A.P.HousingBoard Colony, Anantapur, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2,having obtained permission for construction of a residentialhouse in ground plus two floors, has constructed ground plusfour floors, in deviation to the sanctioned plan, andtransferred it in favour of respondent No.3. Pursuant to theinterim orders of this Court, dated 11.09.2008, after makinginspection of the premises in question, a report prepared bythe Commissioner of Anantapur Municipal Corporation, isplaced before this Court. In the said report, it is stated thatpermission was granted for construction of only ground plustwo floors, but however, respondents 2 and 3 haveconstructed ground plus four floors, in deviation to theapproved plan. It is further stated that respondents 2 and 3have made an application under the Building PenalisationScheme, vide application No.94/2008/G2, dated 27[th] March2008, by paying penal charges of Rs.20,000/-, and the sameis pending consideration.

4. The Building Penalisation Scheme is notified by theGovernment pursuant to the amendments made to theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by insertion ofprovision under Section 455-A of the said Act. The schemeof such penalization was the subject matter of challengebefore this Court earlier, and a Division Bench of this Court,in the case of K.H.V.Prasad V. Government of A.P.[[1]], has already upheld the said scheme. As much as it is stated thatthe application submitted by respondents 2 and 3 under theBuilding Penalisation Scheme is pending considerationunder Application No.94/2008/G2, dated 27[th] March 2008,no positive direction can be granted by this Court, at thisstage, for removal of the constructions made in deviation tothe sanctioned plan. As admittedly the permission granted infavour of respondent No.2 is only for construction of groundplus two floors, but constructions are made in deviation to thesanctioned plan, and taking into account the pendency of theapplication filed by respondents 2 and 3 in ApplicationNo.94/2008/G2, dated 27[th] March 2008, I deem it appropriateto dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner toput-forth his objections before the authority under theBuilding Penalisation Scheme, within a period of four weeksfrom today. If any such objections are filed within the timestipulated, the competent authority under the BuildingPenalisation Scheme, shall consider such objections, beforepassing orders on the application of respondents 2 and 3. Itis made clear that the 1[st] respondent-Municipal Corporationis at liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter, subject tothe orders to be passed by the authority under the BuildingPenalisation Scheme on the application of respondents 2and 3.

5. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.

_____________________

29[th] December 2009

ajr

[1]2009 (4) ALD 803 (DB)

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J