Disposed

Sandhya Constructions and Estates Private Limited v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Ghmc)

Telangana HC6 Apr 2022WP/6285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of a writ petition challenging GHMC proceedings for unauthorized construction and closing a contempt case. The court directed authorities to verify construction allegations within 8 weeks and closed the contempt proceedings due to conflicting evidence.

What did the court decide?

GHMC directed to verify construction allegations within 8 weeks;Contempt case closed.

Sandhya Constructions and Estates Private Limited Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

,:' nrcH couRi, roR THe':SrnTE.op,rEuAwGnrrA!AT,HyDERABAD (Special original Jur.isdi<ition)^." ''

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ,A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6285 OF 2021 AND^{C C NO: 626 OF 2021}

¶6

WP NO: 6285 OF 2021

¶7

Betwee n :

¶8

Sandhya Constructions and^{Estates Private Limited, (Formerly known} ,as Sandhya Hotels Private Limited),^{A Company regd.underth-e- p-rovrsionsof the} Compdnies Act, Having its registered^{office ai Sy.No 86,87,90,91, Sandhya} Tech'no-1 , Opp Sunshin! Hospital,^{Raidurg MarnRoad} flYderaba{T-elanganaSOOoiZ, nep.'Uy its Managing^{Director, I/iS Sre.edhar Rao, S/o S Babu Rao'} t"Oii",^'ug"O abbut 45^{yea"rs,-R/o. Srivatsam PlotNo 52, Road No 10C' Jubilee} Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Greater^{Hyd-erabad Municipal Corporation(GHMC)' repdfJdi:sHyderabad-} c.".',*-i.t-i..il^{C-Cldomptexrink Bund Road'Lowert} 500063

¶12

Municipa'

¶13

'^{ll?r?l;?3[t5,'J,'"U',:xii-,il,i#i?!#J;r'?f'X'"J:1l':i'"0"0}

¶14

u^{ni ci p aI}

¶15

i ty

¶16

3 r CorPoration'^{h e Assi sta} "Lc^Serilingar P-r 9S"Ji f^X?;,,T Sjfi 3:" [: Jff 'Si'?:1'4

¶17

4 r',4r^{N KaIvan chakra1['"i?d6%'J,:"t"5'j?nlSfiZogli'3,# fl?'} '' u"ars, Occ Business ,t 'pi?i"^{iv x'r'tpallv'Hyderabad'Telangana}

¶18

(R4 impleaded^{as percourt order dated 17 -03'2A21 in lA No 2 ot 2021</sup>}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

t,":,*l:H.f,-{i"';t';i{il$#ffi -^{#:fft-h[#:i3tF,.'} o^io dⁱ " "^" "^{9 :} -^: ffi,E ffi^{,,.[ oJo 3i..} "^o',li {, ff 1"i" I il ;J "Io" "?o"Jl lil" o J" [^{.''' s et a s id e'ih e} :?itru^{ntl,#: :ri,l',ff J[;"ff llfffi 'xil;}

¶21

impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Order No.86/UC/VV.No.104/ClR2OITPS/GHMC I 2021 dated 1 010312021.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned in Order No.86/UC/ W.No.104/ C1R-2OlTpS/ GHpIC/ 2021daled 10-03-2021and stay.of demolition of petitioners building at sy.No. Sy.No.B6,B7l P, 88/ 1,90/A,90/8,91 I 1.9i12 and 92 of Raidurgpanma[tf,a Vittage, Serilingampally Mandal.

¶24

fA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶25

Petition under Section^'1 s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the aJfidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the Material papers as Additionat Miterial papers in W.P. No 6285 of 2O2j and receive the same in the interest of .iustice.

¶26

IA NO: 4 0F 2021

¶27

Betwee n:

¶28

1 . The Greater Hyderabad lVlunrcipal Corporation (GHMC). rep., bv its uo m m, s s i o n e r c c c o m p I ex ri. k B ; ;iJh;:i I L;;; ;i, ;,i"d #o l, i vo u,.. oa o _

¶29

The Dy.Commissior corpoiation,del-ril:t8Jf,l#,r;#i?l j.li,"i.?,irX,"J,l}1:irao,oMunicipar

¶30

3 rhe Assistanr citv ;,.;; ";:^" "::.' " "' c o,p o,a t, on ! J; ;; ;rf,ll",l i fni:,;.;1, f#;:"1 !J5r",5 3,i,.1. y, " .,,,,

¶31

..VAC;

¶32

..VAC;

¶33

AND --'\TE srAY ,ETTT.NERS/RES'.NDENTS Nos. 1 To 3

¶34

ffiHtaffitft##iffiffiffi,ffiqf;mu

¶35

ggr*+;11'h{",=,';#,ryft^{'t;'f,il'rul#*,;;ir} rnsequently d jsmiss the writ

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. A SATYASIRI

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶38

CC NO: 6 0F 2021

¶39

Contempt Case under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondent under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for willfully deliberately violating the Order dated: 12-03-2021 in WP.No. 628512021

¶40

Betwee n :

¶41

lVr. N. Kalyan Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. Dr. N,C. Krishna Reddy, Aged 48 years, Occ. Business, Resident of 2200, Buena Park, Lodha Bellezza, KPHB Phase lV, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

AND

¶44

Sri S Sreedhar Rao, S/o. Sri S.^{Babu Rao,Managing Director'} Sandhya Constructions^{and EstatesPrivate-Limited),F9'I19llI} ["^9Yi^Y''^i: Sandhya Hotels Private^{Limited), Having its Registered'Oftice at survey r\o'} 65,e? 60 si, S-.inorlvi^{reit,n'6-i, ijppoJitJsun;hin;-Hospital Raid-u19lvain} ni,Jo. lliroeianad,^{TelariGna-srioosz'age-oabout45 vears' occupatton'} A ; 3il'.i' { : R/;^{: s-ir vXisir',r*,p' i ;t" N;:si:R; ; ; N o t 0' J u biI e e HiI I s'} Hyderabad.

¶45

45 vears,^Occ:

¶46

2 d No.^10C,Jubilee i,i,3;i,1?B1ltL*?Ei,3le.Rivi'3i3,IEi"f^{i3:3'::fi ::} *itts,^Hyderanad.

¶47

...RESPONDENTS

¶48

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl'KISHORERAI}

¶49

1&2:M/S'A^SATYASRt Counsel^{for the ResPondentNo's}

¶50

The Court^{made the following:}

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶52

WRIT PETITION No,6285 of 2O2L and C.C.No.626 of 2O2L

¶53

COMMON ORDER:

¶54

Since the issues involved in both these matters are intrinsically connected with each other, they are disposed of by this common order.

¶55

Assailing the proceedings of respondent No.2 in order No.86/UC/w.No.r04lcrR-20/Tps/GHMcr2o2r darcd 10.03.202 1 and the consequential proceedings ol. demolitron issued by the respondent authorities even without waiting lor completion of period prescribed in the order dated 10.03.202 1, W.P. No.6285 of 2O2t is filed.

¶56

C.C. No.626 of 2O2t is fiied alleging willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated peririW.i,. No.62g5 of 2021 Lo Lhe extent 12.O3.2O21 of rJirccting passedthe \r'rl tnt oner not take up any construction work or repair work 4) The case of the petitioner in W.p. No.62g5 of 2021, in a nutsheil, is that the pe itioner company was granted builciir:g permission by responde: " vide permit No 22272/Ho/wZ/ cir-l1/208 dated ,a" ' in Fire No'8z8ss/22/ 12/ zot2/Ho,ro. "o.,",..,"i,::'^:': ton of two office/commercial blocks. _

¶57

-_*-.....---.

¶58

¶59

commercial building ol Block-I being office building having 3 cellars, Ground+1O upper floors and Block-ll being commercial complex having 3 cellars, ground+7 upper floors in survey Nos.86, 87 lP, 8811, 9OlA, 91/1, 9112 and 92 of Raidurg Panmaktha Viliage, Serilingampaliy Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Accordingiy, the petitioner Company has started construction and completed Block-ll and the construction of Block-l was under progress. While so, respondent No.3 issued the notice dated 2O.O2.2021 directing to bring back the building in conformity with the sanction plan or to stop the^work. Similar notice dated 03.03.202 I was again issued to^the petitioner. In response, petitioner submitted an explanation stating that there was no deviation from the sanctioned^{plan but} the slab was laid covering the^{open corridor only for the} Convenience of the^{customers.However,withoutconsidering} the same in^{properperspectiveand allegingthat raising of slab} after obtaining^{occupancycertificate is illegaland contrary to} thc sanctioned^{buildingpermissionand plan' the impugned} order^{was passed directingthe petitionerto} remove^the unauthorized^{construcdonQuestioningthe} same,^W.P. No.6285^{of 2O2l is filed'}

¶60

-l

¶61

Respondent No.4, who is the purchaser of Unit N<;.7 [n;m the petitioner Company, has filed a counter affidavit mainly stating that the petitioner had deviated from the sanctioned plan and converted the space meant for toilets jn t.hccommercial complex to that of commercial space and also blocked the access of the petitioner. Therefore, he made a complaint dated 17 .O2.202 1 to the official responclenrs, u,ho after due inspection, have issued the statutory notices to tht: petitioner Company under the provisions of the GHMC Act. After careful scrutiny of the matter and pointing out the unauthorized constructions, the authorities have issued the impugned order. That the writ petitioner having made unauthorized construction contrary to the sanctioned plan cannot file the present writ petition assailing the order or the GHMC to remove the unauthorized constructions. Thereforc, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

Along with vacate stay petition, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC has filed a counter affidavit mainly stating that after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, the petitioner had laid slab rn the area rvhich is meant for escalators and capsule lilt.s, which is part of common area. Therefore, initially notice under

¶63

=_---+

¶64

¶65

Sections 452 (1\ and 461 (1) of rhe GHMC Act was issued. As the petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the said notice, another show cause notice under Section 452 (2\ of tine GHMC Act was issued. Though the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 04.O3.2021 , the said explanation was unsatisfactory, therefore, the authorities have issued the impugned proceedings. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶66

A perusal of the show^{cause notice issuedby the} Dy.Commissioner/respondent^{No.2 shows that the samewas} initially issued^{for layingof slab and for constructing the walls} by deviating^{from the sanctionedplan} Thereafter'^the authorities^{concerned have demolishedthe portionswhich were} mentioned^{in the show-causenotice for that particularextent'} But insofar^{as the other deviationsmadeby the petitionerare} concerned,^{no action has been taken'}

¶67

Even^{though the learned counsel for the petitionerhas} 8) argued^{that once the OccupancyCerti{icate is issued in respect} of the^{subject property' the deviations are deemed to be in} accordance^{with the sanctionedplan and it has to be construed} that^{the minor deviations'which are there' are regularizedby}

¶68

¶69

the authorities concerned. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the Inspection Report made by the authority before granting the Occupancy Certificate, Further it is argued that even if any minor changes like construction ol. internal walls or removal of internal walls are made without effecting the plinth area, no separate permission is required lrom the authorities. Therefore, the impugned order is liablc ro be set aside.

¶70

per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for GFIMC has argued that duly taking into consideration the lirct that raising of the slab by the petitioner after obtaining the Occupancy Certilicate is illegal anci contrary to the sanction plan and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was noI satisfactory, the authorities have passed the impugned order. Thus, the learned Standing Counsel has shted that the authorities have followed the provisions of the GHMC Act scrupulously and there dismissed. :fore the writ petition is liable to be

¶71

Learned counsel : earing for the unofficiai respondent i.e. respondent rvo.+, *.r,t has initiaily made the cornplaint dated 17.o2.2o21to the GHM C Authorities, has yshs, Tlently a rgu t.cl \ N

¶72

¶73

that contrary to the sanctioned plan, the petitioner has constructed the internal walls and thereby affecting the passage and the utility of common area, which are initially shown in the approved building plan. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner initially has taken permission for a single floor unit [or lhe purpose oi utilizing the same as mall/shopping^complex, but, subsequently, he has started constructing the^internal walls and thereby deprivlng the^{access of the unofficial} respondent to^{the property purchased by him i'e- Unit No 7 on} the ground^{floor (Block-ll)with superbuilt up area of 6207} Sq.Ft.^{comprising carpetarea of 3724 Sq' FtLearned counsel} has also^{stated that the at time of inspectionby the authorities} bclore^{granting the OccupancyCertificate' there were no} internal^{walls and they were subsequentlyconstructed by the} petitioner^{and thereforethe same has to be removedand} brought^{back to be in conformity with the sanctionedplan'}

¶74

1i)^{Even though variouscontentionshave beenraised bY} both^{the learned counsels'this Court is not inciinedto go into} the^{same,having regard to the fact that the GHMC has issueda} notice^{against the petitioner on two grounds i'e' raising of slab} after^{issuance of the OccupancyCertificate and construction of} internal^{walls'As it is statedby ali the parties that the first}

¶75

allegation of the deviation i.e., raising slab after obtaining Occupancy Certilicate has already been removed by the GHMC, the challenge to the notice of the GHMC insofar as that item has become infructuous.

¶76

l2l That insofar as the other allegation of deviation by the petitioner i.e., construction of the internal walls in the ground floor of the complex is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the internal walls were in existence as on the date of granting of Occupancy Certifrcate, while on rhc other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents are stating that there were no internal walis at the time of inspection and rhey were subsequently constructed by the petitioner after granting of the Occup certificate' The rival claims made by both the parties "".r.r,u'"' and the same has ro be verined o, ;t"0"",.;::;n:ourt tt' Moreover, the fact remains that tl complaint made by the unofficiar respondent to re crn is for both the deviations and insofar as one deviation ," "'" the same has already been redressed uv tr-r. cnnrroncerned' '^{the other} grievance also needs to be Iooked into by the GHIv Therefore' the Gl{Mc is directec'i rcr physical.ly verify the allegadons made by the unofficiai respondent and if the . rllegations are found to be true, take

¶77

---=---*-

¶78

¶79

necessary action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶80

Having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the internal walls were already constructed by the individual owners of the land and^{not by the} pctitioner, CHMC is directed to physically verify the said fact first and in case, the GHMC finds that the^{said constructions} are contrary to^{the municipal plan sanctionedby the GHMC'} then they^{are obligated to issue notices to all the individual} ownersandtakenecessaryacdonstrictlyinaccordancewith law.^{The entireexerciseshould be completed as expeditiousiy} as^{possible, preferably'within a periodof eig'ht(8) weeks from} the date^{of receiptof a copy of this order'}

¶81

14)^{C.C.No'626 ol 2O2l is filed by the respondent No'4 in the} above^{writ petition alleging that the petitionerin W'P'No'6285of} 2O2l^{hasmade construcdonscontrary to the interimdirections} issued^{bY this Court in W P'No'628 5 of 2O2l on 12'03'2021'At} the^{time of admissionof W'P'No 6285 of 2O2l ' this Court on} 12.O3.2[21has^{passed the following order:-} half^{of thethe}

¶82

half^{of thethe} "Learned^{standing Counsel "pe*'i"1-::-:} official^{respondents seeks time for getting instructlons'} Post^{on 15 03'2o21 in DailyList}

¶83

¶84

I j

¶85

In the meanwhile, the official respondents shall not take any coercive steps. The petitioner shall not undertake any construction work or repair work till the next dare ol' hearing."

¶86

Learned counsel has stated that contrary to the above direction, the writ petitioner has made the constructrons. 1'herefore, he has disobeyed the orders of this Hon,ble court and has to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶87

Learned counsel for the contemnor has stated that the writ petitioner has not made any constructions and it is oniy Lhc individual owners who have made the construction of internal walis.

¶88

l7) As rival claims a o: ** the parties, ir is dirficult ror this court to "..,0,t^1 .lt y as to whether the internal walls were constructed before or after the interim orders r *""'" are granted uide order dated r2.o3.2o2r rn^ -...---as this court has already issucd directions in w.p. No.6 of 2021 to the authorities to verifl, the alegation" o, "on"t .struction of internal v necessary acdon, this corrrr io -^. .^{'::t""twalls andtake} in the presen, closed. ",.-;,"::.:":,::',,.r,..^::, --'v oqrrrc ts accordinglv:-"^

¶89

----:**_-

¶90

¶91