Dismissed

Sri Mahalaxmi Builders v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Rep by its

Telangana HC21 Oct 2010WP/15940/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition questioning a show cause notice regarding unauthorized commercial structures and parking encroachment, the petitioner withdrew the petition after submitting an undertaking to remove non-compliant construction following a municipal inspection report.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted to respondent No.3 to move respondent Nos. 1 and 2 regarding alleged deviations.

Sri Mahalaxmi Builders Vs The Municipal Corporation of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 15940 of 2009

¶3

Oral order:

¶4

The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the notice dated 31.07.2009, issued by respondent No.2, namely the Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle No.1, Sardar Mahal, Hyderabad, under Section 636 read with Sections 441, 442 and 443 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized structures constructed in the stilt/cellar.

¶5

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has given an undertaking that he will himself remove the unauthorized constructions pointed out in the notice.

¶6

While the matter is pending, the flat owners in the building, who constitute an association called Gyandeep Towers Flat Owners Welfare Association, got impleaded themselves as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. The counsel representing respondent No.3 submitted that still there are certain deviations in the building which the petitioner did not remove and that the petitioner in collusion with the officials of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is running a S.T. Hostel in some of the flats and that they have to be demolished.

¶7

Having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.3, this Court by order dated 23.09.2009, directed the Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, to make an inspection of the building in question ascertain the deviations and submit a report.

¶8

Accordingly, the Assistant City Planner, Circle No. IV, South Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, who conducted the

¶9

inspection, submitted his report inter alia stating as follows:

¶10

This office has accorded permission for stilt for parking + 6 upper floor vide Permit No. 475/87, dt. 24.07.1997 in File No.69/TP/A3/82. As per sanctioned plan 6 commercial shops were permitted in the stilt floor to an extent of area 68’.3” x 18’.3” = 1245.56 Sq.ft. The writ petitioner has constructed by deviating the sanctioned plan and by encroaching the parking space to an extent of area 78’.9” x 28’.3” = 2224.68 Sq.fts. The construction of shops over 979.12 Sq.fts. more than the permitted area resulted shortfall in permitted parking space and leads to violation of parking provision. Hence the notice U/s. 636 has been issued for demolition of shops constructed on 979.12 Sq.fts. area which is not permitted as per the sanctioned plan.

¶11

Considering the report, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. However, the counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that he wants to move respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requesting them to take action against the alleged deviations and sought liberty.

¶12

In view of the above stands taken by the petitioner and respondent No.3, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to respondent No.3 to move respondent Nos. 1 and 2, if so, advised. No costs.

¶13

________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶14

Dated: 21^st October, 2010 KSR

Sri Mahalaxmi Builders v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Rep by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahalaxmi Builders v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Rep by its

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

Bakaram Narayana Reddy, Vs Mankhal Laxmamma

Mali Hanmanth Reddy Vs Mali Venkat Reddy

Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Kasa Naresh Kumar, Vs The Municipal Commissioner

A. Candra Sekhar Naidu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Mahesh, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation