Allowed

G.Vittal v. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,. Court compound

Telangana HC17 Sept 2013WP/26327/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of connected writ petitions challenging a notice for sealing construction in deviation of a sanctioned plan. The court directed petitioners to remove deviations, vacate encroached areas, and apply for permission extension. Respondents were ordered to inspect and decide within specified timelines. Related miscellaneous petitions were declared infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Direction to remove deviations within one month, vacate encroached areas, and apply for extension of building permission; direction to respondents to inspect and decide within specified timelines.

G.Vittal Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,. Court… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.26327 of 2011 and 17667 of 2013

¶2

Date: 17.09.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

G.Vittal and another

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao

¶10

Counsel for respondents: Sri K.Vasanth Rao, for Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board

¶11

COMMON ORDER:

¶12

The petitioners in these two writ petitions are common and so are the respondents. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together.

¶13

The petitioners obtained a sanctioned plan on 31.03.2010 from respondent No.1 for construction of a residential building with stilt, ground plus two floors over plot No.3 of Lakshmigunti Colony, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. As the petitioners were found carrying on construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan, respondent No.2 has issued a notice dated 14.09.2011 under Section 249 of the Cantonment Acts, 2006, whereby it has called upon the petitioners to seal the erection within three days from the date of issue of notice, failing which the sealing of the premises will be done by the office of respondent No.1 itself at the cost of the petitioners. Questioning the said notice, the petitioners filed W.P.No.26327 of 2011. In this writ petition, this Court, by order dated 23.09.2011, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the construction site and submit a report as to whether the petitioners were indulging in construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner filed his report dated 15.12.2011. As the period of building permission had expired and the petitioners’ application for extension of the said period was not being considered, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17667 of 2013.

¶14

A perusal of the Advocate Commissioner’s report shows that as per the sanctioned plan, on the eastern side, the petitioners have to leave 15 feet width from the boundary line, whereas the petitioners have raised the construction without leaving any area on the eastern side besides encroaching upon the open area belonging to the cantonment board to a width of 8 feet on the northeast corner. That on the southern side, the petitioners were permitted to construct to a width of 25 feet, whereas the petitioners constructed the building to a width of 60 ½ feet besides encroaching upon the open area towards

¶15

southeast corner and to the extent of 1.8 feet width on the southwest corner. The Advocate Commissioner also found that the petitioners have also raised construction on the western side beyond the sanctioned plan.

¶16

Without disputing the above findings of the Advocate Commissioner, petitioner No.1 has, however, filed an affidavit along with W.P.M.P.No.33108 of 2013 field in W.P.No.26327 of 2011, wherein he has stated that the construction is at the initial stage and that they will proceed with the construction as per the sanctioned plan and restrict their construction within the plotted area only.

¶17

Sri K.Vasanth Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned standing counsel for Secunderabad Cantonment Board appearing for the respondents, submitted that the respondents will not have any objection to consider the petitioners’ application for extension of building permission, provided the petitioners remove all the structures raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan as pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner in his report and thereafter make a fresh application for extension of time granted under the sanctioned plan for construction of building.

¶18

Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, agreed to the above submissions of the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶19

In the light of the above facts, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

¶20

(i) Within one month from today, the petitioners shall remove all the constructions raised by them in deviation of the sanctioned plan as pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner in his report and vacate the encroached area;

¶21

(ii) On such removal, the petitioners shall inform the respondents in writing about the removal of the structures and also make an application for extension of the validity of the building permission;

¶22

(iii) Within three weeks from receipt of such information, the respondents shall inspect the petitioners’ site; and

¶23

(iv) Thereafter, the respondents shall consider the petitioners’ application for extension of validity of the building permission, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioners within one month after the inspection.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of these writ petitions, W.P.M.P.No.32504 of 2011 in W.P.No.26327 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.21491 of 2013 in W.P.No.17667 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶26

17^th September, 2013 GHN

G.Vittal v. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,. Court compound

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vittal v. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,. Court compound

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

Kola Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Vs The Government of India

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao S/o Devendra Rao, Vs The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

Smt.Racherla Gouri Vs The Tahsildar

Ellanki Narender Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Vittal, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Shakeel Islam Khan, Vs The District Collector