Disposed

Pathalavath Bala Naik v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2024WP/637/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Residents alleged deviations from an approved building plan, including a bakery in a residential block and encumbrances over flats statutorily mortgaged to the GVMC. Noting the Corporation had already issued notice under the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, the Court directed it to proceed in accordance with law with a personal hearing and reasoned order within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pathalavath Bala Naik Vs the State of Ap — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

!> .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR -

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6.^7 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pathalavath Bala Naik, S/o. P. Jambulu Naik, Hindu Male Aaed percentO years, R/o. Flat No.3, A-Block, 1®* floor KBC Heights Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Murthy, S/o. Venalcta Rao, Hindu Male

¶9

AgedKurnnannapalemabout 55 years,Village,R/o.GajuwakaFlat No.4,Mandal,A-Block,Visakhapatnam.3rd floor KBC Heiahts^ ’ m Male, Aged about 36 years

¶10

“ s r;“KV“-5.r^ ’ Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam yearf R/o®Hat Not A rT f '^3^^ ^bout 49 Village, Ka..annapa,e.

¶11

Medisetti Satya Venkata Sarweswara Rao S/o. Bennayya Naidu (late)

¶12

Hindu, Male, Aged about 58 years, Rio. Flat No.2, A-Block, 1st floor

¶13

KBC Heights, Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal’

¶14

Visakhapatnam.

¶15

Pudi Ravi Kumar, S/o. P. Venkata about 37 vearq R/n mot m t Murthy, Hindu, Male, Aged Kurn.annapLen,VI,,age,?4:ataMtnTa?^^^^^^^^^ “"'e. Aged

¶16

Kurmannapalem Village^ajuwaka Mandai, Jiikhtpt.nam^

¶17

®' 52"yearn f ^Vdithalli, Hindu, Male, Aged about Kurmannapalem Village, G^uwaktSal, visa "ha'atnaf

¶18

lO.Emani Sita Maha Lakshmi, W/o. E. Venkata Srinivas, Hindu, Female, Aged about 53 years, R/o. Flat No.6, A-Block, 2"^^ floor, KBC Heights, Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶22

The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation, Rep.by^{itsCommissioner.} Visakhapatnam.

¶23

The Zonal Commissioner, (Zone-5) Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam.

¶24

KBC Constructions, rep.by its managing Partner,^{Smt.SaradaW/o.} Seetharamaraju, Hindu, Female, Aged- years, D.No.37-21-48, Duwada Station Road, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam.

¶25

Vemanamanda Jyothi, W/o. V.V.N.M.Raju, Hindu, Female, Aged about 51 years, R/o. D.No.31-27-50, Kurmannapalem, Duwada Station Road, Opp, Canara Bank, Visakhapatnam-46.

¶26

Vemanamanada Sri Devi, W/o. V.V. Seetha Rama Raju, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Rio. D.No.31-27-50, Kurmannapalem, Duwada Station Road, Opp. Canara Bank, Visakhapatnam-46.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 & 3 in not taking any action against the unofficial Respondent No.4 to 6 for the violation of the building plan approval in proceedings B.A.No. 11306/2008/ACP/B/G1 Dated 10.02.2011 and also not taken any action on creating encumbrance over the statutory mortgaged flats in favor of them and thereby allowing the commercial activity in the Apartment KBC Heights, Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam in R.S.No.66/3A is contrary to the approved building plan is illegal irregular arbitrary, violative of the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal

¶29

Corporation Act and Rules framed thereunder and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to take appropriate action against the unofficial respondent for violation, deviation of the approved plan B.A.No. 11306/2008/ ACP/B/G1 Dated 10.02.2011, levy house tax on the respective flats by releasing the occupancy certificate to the KBC Heights of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam in R.S.No.66/3A.

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official Respondents No. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the unofficial respondents for deviation of the approved plan B.A.NO. 11306/2008/ACP/B/G1 Dated 10.02.2011 i.e., KBC Heights, A- Block and running of the commercial activity in the residential block pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI K. MADHAVA REDDY, SC FOR GVMC

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH Counsel for the RespondentNos. 5 & 6 : SRI G. RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

APHC010010232023

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶37

[3332]

¶38

TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 637/2023

¶42

Between:

¶43

Pathalavath Bala Naik and Others

¶44

...PETITIONER(S)

¶45

AND

¶46

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶47

1.MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶49

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶50

2.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC)

3.RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH

4.G RAMA GOPAL

5.G RAMA GOPAL

The Court made the following:

¶55

ORDER:

¶56

Questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 & 3^{innottakingaction} against the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 6 for violation of building plan approval in proceedings B.A.No.11306/2008/ACP/B/G1, dated 10.02.2011

¶57

and also not taking action on creating encumbrance over the statutory mortgaged flats in favor of Corporation and thereby allowing the commercial activity in the Apartment-KBC Heights in R.S.No.66/3A, Kumannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶58

Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 and Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶59

Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are residents of the subject apartment and wherein the un-official respondents contrary to the building plan approval have established a bakery. Further, the property which was mortgaged with the Corporation have been purchased by the respondent Nos.5 & 6 from the 4'^ respondent and in spite of bringing to the notice of the Corporation, the authorities have not acted upon the same, As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners.

¶60

Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, on counter submitted that, a notice was already issued to respondent Nos.4 to 6 invoking^Section441 read with 461-A of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act,^{1955on10.01.2024but} so far they have not submitted any explanation. However, the Corporation

¶61

has intention to take steps in accordance with law on the petitioners’ representation.

¶62

Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6, on counter submitted that the respondent Nos.5, 6 are bona fide purchasers of the subject property and they have leased out to a bakery long back and till filing of this writ petition nobody raised any allegation but surprisingly at this length of time, several allegations have been raised including about the mortgage of the property purchased by the respondent in favor of the Corporation. The Corporation has no right to issue any notice and moreover no notices were issued to other inmates of the ground^{floorwhohaveleased} out this property for commercial activity. A perusal of the incumbency certificate shows that the subject property non-encumbrance^However,the respondent Nos.5 & 6 are contemplating to take steps in that regard.

¶63

Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contended that they are only builders and they have completed the construction work long back and as on today they have no right on the subject property and if at all the petitioners and other inmates of the building has any grievance they have to redress before appropriate forum and they cannot find any fault against builders and prayed to dismiss the^{writpetition.}

¶64

Perused the record.

¶65

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the property^whichwas mortgaged in favor of the Corporation has been sold^{therespondentNos.5&}

¶66

6 and further contrary to the building plan the respondent Nos.5 & 6 have leased out the property to run a bakery therein and the leaseholders have erected chimney and several cylinders in the residential building. In spite of bringing to the notice of the authorities of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipality Corporation, they have not taken any action. The counter filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 would reveal that they have issued notice on 10.01.2024 by invoking the provisions of Section 441 read with 461-A of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to the respondent Nos.5 & 6. The contention of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 is that they are the bona-fide purchasers and they purchased the property in the year 2011 and at this length of time, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance, It is the further contention of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 that the notice is not is accordance with law.

¶67

Taking the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties into consideration as the respondent authorities have already issued notice and they have already set law into motion and the relief sought in the present writ petition is innocuous and this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order;

¶68

“The respondent Corporation is directed to take further course of action pursuant to the notice dated 10.01.2024 in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to ail the parties concerned and to pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If at all the respondent Nos.5

¶69

¶70

& 6 finds any notice issued by the Corporation is not in consonance with the

¶71

provisions of law, they are not precluded to take steps.”

¶72

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as

¶73

to costs.

¶74

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

¶75

closed.

¶76

//TRUE COPY//

¶77

Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶78

To.

¶79

SEdnO^ToFFICER

¶80

Administration Department, State of

¶81

AP, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶82

The Commissioner, Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation

¶83

Visakhapatnam.

¶84

The Zonal Commissioner, (Zone-5) Greater Visakha Municipal

¶85

Corporation Visakhapatnam.

¶86

OneCCto Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶87

TwoCCsto GP for Municipal Admn & Urban Development, High Court

¶88

of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶89

One CC to Sri K. Madhava Reddy, SC for GVMC (OPUC) 7. One CC to Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to Sri G. Rama Gopal, Advocate (OPUC)

¶90

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.637 of 2023

■*
Vj
xO
.'X 2 6 JUN 202^
A Curfent Se.ruon
O.'C''-.
, v.»
PATC;^^?;^'

¶97

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Pathalavath Bala Naik v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pathalavath Bala Naik v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Quik Memorial Baptist Church Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Sagar Nagar Rtd Layout Plot Owners and Residences Welfare Association Vs the State of Ap

Sri Venkateswara Borewells Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Srikakulapu Srinivasarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudumuri Venkata Bhaskar Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vytla Srinivasa Chowdary, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh