Allowed

A.Ramchandra Rao v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC8 Jul 2008WP/14499/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Municipality to consider the petitioner's application for building permission. It held that permission cannot be rejected solely because the land falls within the full tank level of a reservoir, subject to the petitioner's undertaking to build at their own risk without claiming future compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to consider the application and not reject it solely due to the full tank level, provided the petitioner undertakes construction at his own risk.

A.Ramchandra Rao Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14499 of 2008

¶4

Between:

¶5

A.Ramchandra Rao S/o.A.Swamy H.No.1-8-1/8 Ravindranagar Habsiguda,Hyderabad

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Uppal Circle, Ranga Reddy District Rep.by its Deputy Commissioner 2 District Collector Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad 3 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep.by its Chairman Police Line Begumpet Hyderabad 4 Thasildar Uppal Mandal Ranga Reddy District

¶9

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not granting permission for construction of 1st Floor on House bearing No.18-1/8 Ravindranagar in Plot No.187 Sy.Nos63,64 65/part of Habsiguda Ranga Reddy District having received the application with the fee on 0301-2008 on the ground that the said plot No.187 may fall in the subergence of the full tank level of pedda Cheruvu/ Ramanthapur Tank is arbitrary and illegal and construction of 1st floor on house bearing No.1-81/8 Ravindranagar,Habsiguda Ranga Reddy District and pass

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RADHAKRISHNA

¶13

The Court made the following :

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14499 OF 2008

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

1. Petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 1-8-1/8. He applied for permission for construction of ground floor and 1^st floor from the Uppal Kalan Municipality. The concerned Municipality granted permission vide Permit NO. D-BA/219/99, dated 16-11-1999. However, he constructed only ground floor and he could not proceed with the construction of the 1^st floor. Therefore, he filed an application for renewal of building permission on 3-1-2008 by paying miscellaneous charges of Rs.565/- under receipt No. 070131038. He was informed orally by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Uppal Circle-1^st Respondent that plot No. 187/Part is likely to fall in the submergence of the full tank level of Pedda Cheruvu Tank (Ramanthapur Tank). It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that so far no steps have been taken by the 1^st Respondent for acquiring the site so as to make it part of ‘Full Tank Level’ area and therefore, the 1^st respondent cannot refused to grant permission for construction of first floor over the existing floor of the house. Hence, this writ petition.

¶17

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for 1^st respondent and 3^rd respondent. 3. Both the counsel submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 6426 of 2006 ( E.Upender Reddy and others Vs. Uppal Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District) dated 31-3-2006 and W.P.No. 16397 of 2004 ( G. Jalandar Vs. Uppal Municipality rep. By its Commissioner, Uppal) dated 13-4-2005.

¶18

4. It has been held in the above referred decisions that the Building Permission of the owners of the premises cannot be rejected on the ground of the land owned by them is likely to come within the full tank

¶19

level. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No. 6426 of 2006 and it is thus:

¶20

“Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the applications of the petitioners and see whether they are in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act and the buildings rules and regulations, and master plan etc., of the Urban Development Authorities and if all the requirements are satisfied, not reject the same merely on the basis that they fall within the full tank level of Peddacheruvu, and consider the same subject to the undertaking given by the petitioners that they are undertaking the construction at their own risk and would not claim compensation for the building, or for the other eventualities in case of risk or acquisition, for preserving the land for full tank level.”,

¶21

5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st Respondent to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules and Regulation of Master Plan etc., of the Urban Development Authority and if all the requirements are satisfied not to reject the same merely on the basis that they fall within the full tank level of Peddachervuu and consider the same subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner that he would be constructing the building at his own risk and own costs and would not claim compensation for the building or for the other eventualities in case of risk or acquisition, for preserving the land for full tank level. No order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

¶23

8^th July, 2008. C.C. in three days B/o KM

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 14499 OF 2008

¶26

8th July, 2008.

A.Ramchandra Rao v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ramchandra Rao v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajmeera Raghavulu S/o Bheemla Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by

Mohd.Tayyab Vs The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and

Smt.Leelavathi Heda, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Mohammed Abdul Razaak Qamar Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Panchadara Gangamma W/o Late bennayya Vs The additional Agent to the Government

Barre Ratnam, Vs The Addl. Agent to the Govt.