Disposed

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2021WP/7294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition challenging showcause notices issued under the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act for alleged illegal construction, the Court directed the petitioner to submit proof of Gram Panchayat permission. Pending this enquiry, the petitioner was restrained from leasing the property or carrying on business, with the status quo maintained.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit representation with evidence of Gram Panchayat permission within two weeks. Status quo maintained. Petitioner prohibited from leasing property or conducting business

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Writ Petition No.7294 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 – Corporation.

¶4

2). The Writ Petition has been filed seeking declaration that the action of the 2^nd respondent Corporation in issuing showcause notice dated 08.03.2021 under Section 452(2) of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, the “Act”), and the show-cause notice dated 26.02.2021 issued under Section 252(1) of the Act in respect of the property bearing Door No.40-1-117C, situated near Reliance Trends, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, as illegal and consequently, sought a direction to the 2^nd respondent Corporation to forbear from initiating any further action pursuant to the said notice and to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice.

¶5

3). The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property in an extent of 1442.43 sq. yards as he got the same by way of a registered partition deed dated 22.01.2015. It is stated that he paid the property tax as assessed by the 2^nd respondent Corporation and he has been paying the property tax for the said property regularly. It is the case of the petitioner that till the year 2012, the said property is in the joint name of one Kanuru Nagabhushanam and Kanuru Koteswara Rao and on 12.02.2013 Kanuru Koteswara Rao applied for sub-division of

¶6

CMR, J. W.P.No.7294 of 2021

¶7

¶8

door number and accordingly, the Revenue Inspector issued notice dated 24.04.2013 to Kanuru Nagabhush;anam and Kanuru Venkateswara Rao and thereafter, sub-division Door No.40-1-117B was allotted in favour of Kanuru Nagabhushanam and Door No.40-1-117C was allotted to Kanuru Koteswara Rao. Thereafter, in the year 2015, both of them have exchanged their properties by mutual consent.

¶9

4). In the year 2015 the petitioner states that he has leased out the property covered by Door No.40-1-117C in favour of ‘Food Court’ and the lessee has been running his business in the said premises. However, due to lockdown declared by the Government on account of pandemic situation that the business premises was closed and on account of non-user of the said property for long time, it got damaged. So, the petitioner effected repairs to it and laid asbestos sheet roof. When the said work is in progress, the impugned notices were served on the petitioner and he gave explanation to it. However, the respondents are not satisfied with the said explanation and now they have initiated action for demolition of the said construction. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition claiming the aforesaid reliefs.

¶10

5). Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, would submit that the ground floor of the said property was illegally constructed without obtaining any approval of plan from the respondent Corporation. Therefore, after following due process of law by giving necessary notices to

¶11

CMR, J. W.P.No.7294 of 2021

¶12

¶13

the petitioner and having been not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner that the respondent Corporation has issued notice under Sections 452(2) of the Act for demolition of the said premises. He would submit that it is not renovation of the building as stated by the petitioner and the alleged construction is illegal construction made without obtaining prior approval of the plans and the same is liable to be demolished. So, he would pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶14

6). The primary contention of the petitioner is that it is not an unauthorised and illegal construction without obtaining prior approval of plan and it is the case of the petitioner that it is a case of renovation of the property which was damaged on account of non-user for long period during COVID-19 season. However, the petitioner did not produce any documents before the Court to show that the building was constructed as per the plans approved by the Corporation. Answering to the question posed by the Court whether the petitioner got any evidence to show that the ground floor was constructed as per approved plan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the building was constructed long back in the year 1960 when the Patama, where the building is situated was a Panchayat and it was constructed after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. However, the petitioner did not produce even the said permission of the Gram Panchayat before this Court to substantiate his contention that it is an authorised construction made as per the permission accorded by the Gram Panchayat.

¶15

CMR, J. W.P.No.7294 of 2021

¶16

¶17

The same is also not reflected in any of the two explanations submitted by the petitioner to the earlier show-cause notices served on him by the respondent Corporation.

¶18

7). However, learned counsel for the petitioner now would submit that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, he would produce the permission accorded by the Gram Panchayat before the respondent Corporation to substantiate his case that it is not an unauthorised construction made without any prior approval.

¶19

8). So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit his representation afresh before the authorities of the respondent Corporation along with necessary evidence of granting permission by the Gram Panchayat to prove that the ground floor was constructed as per the permission granted by the then Gram Panchayat and it is not an unauthorised construction. The petitioner shall submit his representation along with necessary evidence to that effect before the respondent Corporation within two weeks from the date of this order. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, according to law, within four weeks from the date of submission of the said representation. The petitioner is directed not to lease out the said property in question to any lessee or to carry on any business activity in the said premises till orders are passed by the respondent Corporation as directed by this Court supra. The property in

¶20

CMR, J. W.P.No.7294 of 2021

¶21

¶22

question has to be maintained as it is till the final orders are passed by the respondent Corporation. In other words, status quo existing as on today is to be maintained till the orders are passed by the respondent Corporation as directed supra. No costs.

¶23

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶24

_________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:01-04-2021. cs

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dunna Sankara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Karimulla, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gubbala Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Revella Udaya Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Sithamrna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dharmapuri Ravindra Rao Vs the State of Ap