G Sobha Rani v. State of Ap
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of a writ petition and appeal where the petitioner sought demolition of unauthorized construction. The Court set aside the interim injunction, directed the respondent to file proof of pre-1991 construction and relevant regulations, and dismissed the petition allowing action based on that evidence.
What did the court decide?
Set aside the order under appeal. Direct the petitioner to submit proof of construction date and applicable regulations within 10 days; call upon the GVMC to pass a reasoned order within 10 days of re
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
Writ Appeal No.780 of 2018 & Writ Petition No.12816 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
This appeal is prefered, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.12816 of 2018 dated 24.04.2018. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed W.P.No.12816 of 2018 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), and its Zonal Commissioner, in trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of their commercial establishment at Visakhapatnam, during the pendency of the application seeking confirmation whether the said property falls within CRZ-II or CRZ-III by the 3rd respondent therein and in violation of the injunction orders, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. By way of interim relief, they sought a direction to the respondents therein not to interfere with their peaceful possession pending disposal of the writ petition.
On the ground that the GVMC had itself, in its endorsement dated 05.09.2017, informed the respondents-writ petitioners that they should approach the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (“VUDA” for short) for confirmation whether their land fell within CRZ-II or CRZ-III, the respondents-writ petitioners claim to have made an application to VUDA on 10.10.2017, and because no reply was forthcoming to their representation, this Court directed the respondents in the writ petition (including the appellants herein) not to interfere with the respondent-writ petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property till VUDA disposed of their application dated 10.10.2017.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the GVMC can proceed with demolition of the building without determining the classification of the land and applicability of exemption under the 1991 CRZ Regulations.
Whether the respondents-writ petitioners need prior clearance from the Coastal Zonal Management Authority given the construction date relative to the 1991 CRZ Regulations.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
- petitioner
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
- petitioner
ZONAL COMMISSIONER, GVMC
- respondent
RESPONDENT-WRIT PETITIONERS
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · June
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/12816/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court