Disposed

Sri.S.Maruthi, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Apr 2022WP/11720/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined the validity of a Gram Panchayat resolution allegedly granting building permission on 06.05.2021. Finding inconsistencies in the minutes regarding handwriting and ink, and noting the Village Secretary's contradictory affidavit, the Court rejected the resolution's genuineness, declaring the construction unauthorised.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent directed to take steps to remove the unauthorised construction within three months.

Sri.S.Maruthi, Vs the State of Andhra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11720 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.3, Kowthalam Village & Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶5

The 5^th respondent is the neighbour of the petitioner and started construction of a building in a plot, adjacent to the house of the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent, by way of a complaint, against the 5^th respondent alleging that the construction being carried out by the 5^th respondent was illegal as no building permission was obtained and further the said construction was being made by encroaching on the public road adjacent to the plot. After receiving this complaint, the 4^th respondent had issued a notice dated 25.05.2021 to the 5^th respondent. As there was no further action by the 4^th respondent or the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition for a declaration that the inaction of the 4^th respondent in removing the encroachment and demolishing the unauthorised structure raised by the 5^th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to the respondents to remove the encroachments and to demolish the structures constructed by the 5^th respondent.

¶6

After receipt of notice, the 4^th respondent as well as the 5^th respondent have filed counter affidavits. As there was

¶7

¶8

some confusion as to the actual owner of the plot, the 6^th respondent, who is the father of the 5^th respondent, was subsequently impleaded.

¶9

It is the case of the respondents 5 and 6 in the counters filed by them that there was an existing dilapidated building in the site which was demolished and thereafter, a new building was constructed. The respondents 5 and 6 contend that they had approached the Gram Panchayat for necessary permissions and had been told that on account of the Covid-19 pandemic and consequent regulations, necessary approvals would not be available immediately as the Gram Panchayat was not meeting due to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, they could go ahead with the demolition of the building and constructions. The respondents 5 and 6, on the basis of the said assurances are said to have commenced construction of the building. Thereafter, the respondents 5 and 6 had obtained necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 06.05.2021, after paying the necessary building fees for which, a receipt was also obtained.

¶10

Sri P.Veera Reddy learned senior counsel, appearing for Mrs.Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had initially obtained an order from this Court on 23.06.2021, for stopping all further construction. However, the respondents 5 and 6 have completed the construction even while the interim order of the Court was in

¶11

¶12

force. He further submits that a contempt case has been filed for violation of the orders of this Court and the same is pending.

¶13

Sri K.Rajanna learned counsel, appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the construction in the site was taken up in accordance with the building plan that has been approved by the Gram Panchayat on 06.05.2021. He would further submit that there has been no encroachment on the public road and the same has also been inspected by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, who is arrayed as 4^th respondent in the writ petition.

¶14

He submits that in view of the fact that the construction has been carried out strictly in accordance with the building plan, approved by the Gram Panchayat, nothing further survives in the present writ petition.

¶15

As various doubts has been raised as to whether the permission had been given by the Gram Panchayat on 06.06.2021, this Court had summoned the original record of the meetings of the Gram Panchayat said to have been held in that period. The receipt book relating to the payment of taxes and other fees to the Gram Panchayat was also required to be produced.

¶16

A perusal of the minutes book of the Gram Panchayat that the said minutes book contains the minutes of the meeting said to have been held on 06.05.2021, 12.07.2021

¶17

¶18

and 17.08.2021. There are no minutes of any further meetings after 17.08.2021.

¶19

Sri K.Rajanna learned counsel, appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 submits that this is because the minutes book was summoned in September, 2021.

¶20

A perusal of the resolution passed on 06.05.2021 would show that the resolutions at Sl.Nos.1 to 13 were written in one hand, one ink and pen and the resolution from Sl.Nos.14 to 29 were written in a different ink and different hand writing. The resolution No.30, which is the resolution of approval given to the respondents 5 and 6, is in a different ink and handwriting and at the bottom of the page. The resolutions at Sl.Nos.31 to 35 are again in one hand writing and another ink. These resolutions are said to have been passed on 06.05.2021. However, the difference in handwriting, ink and pen used for writing these resolutions raises any amount of doubt as to the veracity and credibility of these minutes. In these circumstances, this Court is not prepared to accept these minutes as genuine minutes showing the resolution of approval, for the building permission said to have been given to the 5^th respondent.

¶21

The 4^th respondent, in his counter affidavit, states that he had issued a notice to the 5^th respondent on 25.05.2021 at the request of the petitioner, to stop construction of the building. After making the statement, the 4^th respondent goes on

¶22

¶23

to say that building permission was granted by a resolution passed on 06.05.2021 and the notice of 25.05.2021 was sent simply because a complaint was made. This contradictory stand of the 4^th respondent cannot be accepted. It is difficult to believe that the Village Secretary was unaware of the building permissions granted in the village, and issued a notice for stopping of construction within 20 days of the said permission being given. This contradictory stand of the 4^th respondent also raises any amount of doubt as to whether a resolution was passed on 06.05.2021, approving the building plan of the 5^th respondent.

¶24

In the circumstances, it must be held that the alleged approval granted by the Gram Panchayat on 06.05.2021 cannot be accepted by this Court. Once the said resolution is discarded, it would mean the 5^th respondent does not have approval for the construction that has been carried out by the 5^th respondent.

¶25

In that view of the matter, the 4^th respondent shall take steps, according to law, relating to the unauthorised construction made by the respondents 5 and 6 in Ward No.3, Kowthalam Village & Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶26

The said action shall be taken expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The record produced by the learned standing counsel has been returned to the learned standing counsel.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There

¶29

shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

20.04.2022

RJS

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.11720 of 2021

¶38

20.04.2022

¶39

RJS

Sri.S.Maruthi, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S.Maruthi, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digumoorthy Vinayaka Mourya Vs Paladugu Venkateswara Prasad

M/s. Brc Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D Rathnamaiah Vs State of Ap

Golluru Ammayi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Navayuga Mahila Sangam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chaluvadi Ammani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh