The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice directing removal of unauthorized construction. The petitioner had built a flat without valid approval despite a warning, making the notice legally valid and not vitiated.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.19116 of 2015 Date: 26.06.2015
Between:
K.Ravi, S/o. Saraiah, Aged about 42 years, Occu:Business, R/o.H.No.3-4-758/20/9/B, New Raipura, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
.. Petitioner
AND The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
.. Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.19116 of 2015
ORDER:
Petitioner claims to have purchased the house bearing No.34-758/20/9/B of New Raipura, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. Petitioner claims to have undertaken to construct a new building in the place of old building and after paying all the requisite fees, application was submitted granting building permission. Notice dated 02.06.2014 was issued to the petitioner under Section 452(2) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The notice indicates that petitioner was constructing residential building without permission and that building permission was refused for not submitting the LRS proceedings and plan. Petitioner gave explanation on 18.06.2014 stating that as the Master Plan of Warangal Municipal Corporation was not in force, no LRS proceedings are required. However, without waiting further orders from the Corporation, petitioner constructed the house. Alleging that house was constructed illegally the notice impugned was issued. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only objection was that proceedings granting LRS was not submitted. Petitioner has constructed the house as originally envisaged and there was no deviation and, therefore, the rejection of building application and directing the petitioner to remove unauthorized constructions in the impugned notice is illegal. Learned counsel further submits that building has been constructed and petitioner has also filed application
for regularization. At this stage the same could not be rejected.
4. The facts narrated in the affidavit and the material enclosed to the writ petition would clearly disclose that even though Municipal Corporation has warned the petitioner about the illegal constructions made by him as early as in July, 2014, petitioner went ahead and constructed the house. Whether LRS certificate was required or not is entirely different aspect, but petitioner ought to have persuaded the respondent-corporation to accord approval for the building permission. Without building permission petitioner ought not to have constructed the building. Thus, it is clear from the material on record that without valid permission and in spite of warning given by the respondentcorporation, building was constructed. Thus, it cannot be said that notice impugned in the writ petition is vitiated warranting interference by this Court. I, therefore, see no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this contempt case shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Date: 26.06.2015 kkm
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.19116 of 2015
Date: 26.06.2015
kkm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere to quash the notice issued under Section 452(2) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which directed the removal of unauthorized constructio
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Ravi
State of Telangana, rep.by its Principle Secretary, Municipal Administration
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
