Vinay Kumar Eedara, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 150 AP

 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

               MAIN CASE No.: W.P. No.891 of 2022
                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                       Office
       DATE                                      ORDER
No                                                                                        Note

1.    12.01.2022 MSM, J

                         As seen from the material on record, the petitioners
                were granted permission on 29.10.2018 for construction of the
                building consisting of four floors and construction was
                completed on 05.12.2019 and later occupancy certificate dated
                25.01.2020 was issued by the 2nd respondent satisfying with the

construction in accordance with the permission accorded to the petitioners. Since the petitioners mortgaged the property in favour of the Municipal Corporation for construction of the building in accordance with the approved plan, the respondents after inspection satisfied themselves that their construction was in accordance with law, cancelled the mortgage deed by order dated 06.02.2020 and in the said document, there is a clear recital that commercial building was constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Taking into consideration of this recital in the document, Sri Chakkilam Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the municipal authorities have certified that their construction was in accordance with law.

But whereas the respondents contended that subsequent to cancellation of the mortgage deed, the petitioners constructed fifth floor on the existing completed four floors building. Both the petitioners and respondents placed on record the photographs of the building.

According to the photograph placed on record by the petitioners, the petitioners only raised tin shed room on the fourth floor. But whereas as per the photograph placed on record by the respondents, the petitioners constructed 5th floor on the 4 floors building. But said controversy cannot be decided at this stage unless the parties are allowed to file their counter.

Since four days from tomorrow are holidays to the Public Officers on account of the Pongal festival, there is a direction from the Full Bench of the Composite High Court in 3 Aces, Hyderabad vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad1 which reads as follows:

"When the Corporation comes to the conclusion, keeping the above guidelines in view, that the construction in question is required to be demolished or pull down, it should follow the procedure indicated below:

(i) The demolition should not be restored to during festival days declared by the State Government as public holidays excluding Sundays. If the festival day declared by the Government as a public holiday falls on a Sunday, on that Sunday also, the Corporation should not resort to demolition.

(ii) In any case, there should not be any demolition after sun set and before sun rise.

(iii) The Corporation should give notice of demolition as required by the statute fixing the date of demolition. Even on the said date, before actually resorting to the demolition, the Corporation should give reasonable time, depending upon the premises sought to be demolished, for the inmates to withdraw from the premises. If within the time given the inmates do not withdraw, the Corporation may proceed with actual demolition;

These guidelines are laid down in view of the fact that the Corporation is a public authority and its action must be tested on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness".

Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of the Composite High Court in the above judgment, the respondents are directed not to demolish the offending portion of the construction for a period of five days.

List on 17.01.2022 for filing counter.

________ MSM, J Note: Issue CC today (B/o) ARR

AIR 1995 AP 17