Petitioners challenged Municipal Corporation's inaction on a complaint regarding unauthorized construction by the 2nd respondent. Court accepted that no construction permission was granted to the 2nd respondent, disposed of petition, and ordered CWMP as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19787 of 2012
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking steps in pursuance of the complaint of the petitioners dated 02.05.2012 and their application dated 16.05.2012 as illegal and arbitrary.
The 1st petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. They claim that they are the owners and possessors of sites admeasuring 700 sq. yards and 300 sq. yards respectively in Sy.No.29/1 of Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam. The 2nd respondent is the son of the 1st petitioner. Alleging that the 2nd respondent herein and others are interfering with their (petitioners) possession, the petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.1664 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd respondent herein and others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. It is stated that pending the said suit, the petitioners have obtained temporary injunction in I.A.No.571 of 2009 and the same is in force.
In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that without obtaining permission for construction, the 2nd respondent is making constructions by encroaching into their lands and, therefore, they made a complaint on 02.05.2012 to the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, bringing to his notice
about the unauthorized constructions being made by the 2nd respondent and requesting to take action thereon. They also made a representation on 16.05.2012 to the Public Information Officer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, seeking information about permission if any granted in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the land in question. The grievance of the petitioners is that till date no action has been taken either on the complaint dated 02.05.2012 or the representation dated 16.05.2012 filed by them.
When the matter has come up on earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Today, when the matter is called, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that though the 2nd respondent has applied for grant of building permission in the land in question, the same is rejected by the authorities and the 2nd respondent is not proceeding with the construction. Learned counsel further submitted that on earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent raised some basement constructions, but thereafter he has stopped the same and is not proceeding with any construction at present.
From the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, it is clear that no permission for construction is granted in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the question of making constructions in the land in question by the 2nd respondent does not arise. Further, it is to be noticed that pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.1664 of 2009, the petitioners obtained injunction in their favour in I.A.No.571 of 2009 and the same is in force.
In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition placing on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that no permission, for construction in the land in question, is granted in favour of the 2nd respondent. However, as there is no permission for construction in favour of the 2nd respondent, it is needless to mention that if the 2nd respondent proceeds with constructions in the land in question, I am sure the 1st respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate steps.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.25374 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
06.07.2012 Note: Issue CC in three days B/o v v
Mother and daughter
Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
Son of petitioner
R.SUBHASH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
