Petitioner challenged interference with sanctioned construction rights. Court held respondents cannot hinder lawful construction but may take action if violations of law are discovered,dispose of petition by consent.
Petitioner allowed to carry on construction strictly in accordance with the approved building plan and law.
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 NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21921 of 2013
ORDER :
This writ petition is instituted complaining of the interference with the right of writ petitioner to carry on constructions in accordance with the building plan, which has been sanctioned in his favour on 14.06.2012 by Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation – the second respondent.
On the last occasion, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and the learned standing counsel for Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation have all taken time to secure instructions about the matter. However, Sri.N.Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation- second respondent would submit that the second respondent having granted the building permission on 14.06.2012 is perfectly legitimate and is expected to verify as to whether constructions are carried on strictly in accordance with the approved building plan or not and in case the petitioner has departed therefrom, the second respondent - Corporation is liable to take appropriate action in the matter duly following the procedure prescribed under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the provisions of which enactment are applicable to Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation. Similarly, the learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development would submit that the Tahasildar is entitled to protect the interest of the State and is entitled to ensure that no Government land is either occupied or encroached upon or developed unauthorisedly by any person.
Therefore, leaving liberty to the respondents to ensure that the
petitioner confines his construction strictly in accordance with the approved building plan and also carry on his activities strictly in accordance with law and in case it is noticed by the respondents that his actions are in conflict with any provisions of law, duly following the procedure prescribed under law, appropriate action can be taken against the petitioner. However, so long as the petitioner is carrying on the activity strictly in accordance with law, the respondents shall not cause hindrance.
The writ petition stands disposed of with this Order, with the consent of all the counsel, at the admission stage.
________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J July 30, 2013 BV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner can be restrained from carrying on construction in accordance with the sanctioned building plan.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Writ Petitioner
Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation
Tahasildar
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
