Dismissed

Ch. Koteswara rao, v. Tenali Muncipality, Tenali

Telangana HC10 Sept 2014WP/25432/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed a writ petition seeking cancellation of building permissions and demolition of a Kalyanamandapam, noting that deviated portions were removed and the building regularized. It also dismissed a contempt petition for lack of evidence regarding violation of earlier court orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking cancellation of permit and demolition dismissed; contempt case dismissed at admission stage.

Ch. Koteswara rao, Vs Tenali Muncipality, Tenali — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 25432 OF 2010 And C.C.No.1623 of 2010

¶3

Date: 10-09-2014

¶4

W.P No. 25432 OF 2010

¶5

Between: Ch.Koteswara Rao

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Tenali Municipality, Tenali and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

C.C.No.1623 of 2010

N.Venkata Rao

…Petitioner

And

Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶18

WRIT PETITION No. 25432 of 2010

¶19

And

¶20

C.C.No.1623 of 2010

¶21

COMMON ORDER:

¶22

W.P.No.25432 of 2010

¶23

This writ petition is filed for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the permission granted in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 vide permit B.A.No.291/07/G2,

¶24

dated 14-09-2007 and to demolish the “Padmavathi Kalyanamandapam” constructed in the premises bearing No.11-2-3 in Pandurangapet, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

¶26

The petitioner states to be a resident of a House bearing No.11-2-59, Ravi Ankineedu Vari Veedhi @ Ravi

¶27

Venkata Subbaiah Veedhi, Pandurangapet, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District. The petitioner is a retired employee.

¶28

The respondents 3 and 4 obtained building permission vide permit B.A.No.291/07/G2, dated 14-09-2007 from the 2^nd respondent for construction of a community hall in the premises bearing No.11-2-3 in Pandurangapet for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The house of petitioner is situated opposite to the said premises. The respondents 3 and 4 after obtaining permission constructed a Kalyanamandapam in the name and style of “ Padmavathi Kalyanamandapam” for commercial purpose in deviation of the approved plan. The said Kalyanamandapam was stated to have been constructed in a narrow lane in residential locality. The petitioner submitted a presentation dated 11-09-2009 to the 2^nd respondent pointing out the misuse of the permission used by the 2^nd respondent by the respondents 3 and 4. But the respondent did not take action inspite of several personal visits. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed.

¶29

The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that the respondents 3 and 4 obtained building permission in B.A.No.291/07/G2, dated 14-09-2007 for construction of community hall and as per the approved plan, the said construction was permitted in residential

¶30

area. The schedule site is having an existing road of 2400 feet width and the community hall is constructed 25.00 meters away from the existing approach road and is connected with 12.00 meters wide strip of site. It was admitted that the

¶31

respondents 3 and 4 constructed building by deviating approved plan, for which a notice was issued by 2^nd respondent on 23-06-2009 for removal of deviated portions. The respondents 3 and 4 submitted revised building plan for the existing building structure and also for constructions of additional constructions for usage as Kalyana Mandapam. The 2^nd respondent granted permission for the construction of additional structures in the premises on 22-06-2010 as per Section 46 of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. The 2^nd respondent has taken all the basic and statutory steps in the matter and the respondents 3 and 4 had removed the violated portions in the side setbacks and got regularized the constructions duly paying the penal amounts as per rules and regulations. The construction of Kalyanamandapam is permitted as per the zoning regulations and G.O.Ms.No.689 M.A., dated 30-12-2006 and G.O.Ms.No.678 M.A., dated 07-09-2007.

¶32

A separate counter affidavit is filed by the 4^th respondent stating that the constructions in deviation of

¶33

sanctioned permit were removed and got constructed in accordance with revised permit. An occupancy certificate was also issued on

¶34

11-11-2010 for the Kalyana Mandapam vide permit B.A.No.194/2010/G2. There is sufficient parking space, which can be seen from the revised sanction plan. The three rooms earlier constructed at the entrance of the western side were removed. The respondents 3 and 4 are citizens of U.S.A and the Kalyana Mandapam was constructed on the land gifted to the 4^th respondent by her mother.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the order passed in W.P.No.12992 of 2009 filed earlier by the respondents 3 and 4 through their G.P.A., the deviated portions cannot be regularized and it is in contravention of the directions contained in the said writ petition. However, he states that he may be permitted to challenge the revised plan, since the petitioners obtained revised plan and made constructions. In view of the removal of deviated portions by the respondents 3 and 4 themselves and making constructions after obtaining revised plan, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however giving opportunity to the petitioners to challenge the revised plan if they are so advised.

¶37

C.C.NO.1623 OF 201O

¶38

This contempt case is filed alleging violation of orders in W.P.No.12992 of 2009, dated 06-10-2009 filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in the above Writ Petition. When a notice was issued by the 2^nd respondent, Tenali Municipality on

¶39

23-06-2009 to remove certain portions of building constructed by them, they challenged the said notice in W.P.No.12992 of 2009 and this Court dismissed the said petition with a direction to the petitioners therein to remove deviated portions within a period of two weeks, failing which the 2^nd respondent was given liberty to take necessary action. After disposal of the said writ petition, it appears that the petitioners therein, the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.25432 of 2010 obtained a revised building plan and made constructions strictly in accordance with said plan and also removed objectionable portions, pursuant to the building plan in B.A.No.291/07/G2, dated 14-09-2007.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though it was observed by this Court in W.P.No.12992 of 2009 filed by the petitioners therein, who are the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.NO.25432 of 2010 that the construction made by them cannot be regularized by

¶41

the 2^nd respondent, the order of this Court in W.P.No.12992 of 2009 was violated. But, in view of the

¶42

in counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent W.P.No.25432 of 2010 stating that the respondents 3 and 4 themselves removed the deviated portions, it cannot be clearly held that whether an earlier deviated portions were regularized, which portion of the construction was regularized, and whether the order dated 06-10-2009 in W.P.No.12992 of 2009 is violated or not.

¶43

The petitioners can obtain information with regard to the regularization orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in respect of the deviated portions and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if there is any violation of the orders passed by this Court or the provisions of A.P.Municipalities Act and rules made there under.

¶44

In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondents 2 to 4 have violated the orders dated 06-102009 passed in W.P.No.12992 of 2009 in the absence of any specific information. In view of the same, contempt case is dismissed at the admission stage.

¶45

In consequence, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition and contempt case shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶46

__________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.

¶47

Date: 10-09-2014 Nvl

¶48

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶49

WRIT PETITION No.25432 of 2010 & C.C.No.1623 of 2010

¶50

Date: 10-09-2014