Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Somoju Ramana vs The State Of Ap on 3 November, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.35139 of 2022
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Ms. P.Lakshmi Priyanvita, learned counsel,
representing Sri K.S.Nagendra Vara Prasad, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration for the respondent No.1 and Sri
S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. For the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to
the unofficial respondent No.5 is dispensed with.
3. With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ petition
is being disposed of finally at this stage.
4. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for the following relief:-
"For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or
order more particularly one in the nature of writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4
in not demolishing the illegal structure carrying by the 5 th
respondent over the petitioner land in survey no.89/3
admeasuring Ac.4.00 situated at Chinagantyada Village,
Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in spite of the
Petitioner representations dated 22.12.2021 and
23.09.2022 including cancellation of building sanction
permission vide permit no.1086/2781/B/Z5/CDA/2020,
dated 3.1.2022 granted by the respondents 2 to 4 in
favour of 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and
against the building byelaws of A.P. Municipalities Act
and also against the Article 300-A of Constitution of India
and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent No.5, Bodudupali Venkateswara Varaprasad is
raising construction over the petitioner's land. He obtained
building permission from the respondent No.3 by suppressing
the material fact that with respect to the land, the petitioner
filed O.S.No.339 of 2015 along with others against many
defendants including the respondent No.5 as one of the
defendants and in the said suit the order to maintain the status
quo was granted. The petitioner apprehending that the
respondent No.5 shall apply for building permission submitted
representation dated 22.12.2021, but without taking into
consideration the petitioner's representation the building
permission was granted in favour of the respondent No.5
against which the petitioner filed another representation dated
23.09.2022, but the respondent No.3 has not taken any action
and pursuant to the building permission but in violation of the
order of status quo granted by the Trial Court, the respondent
No.5 is still proceeding with the construction.
6. Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy submits that according to
the petitioner, O.S.No.339 of 2015 is pending and if the order of
injunction of the status quo is being violated by respondent
No.5 the petitioner has remedy available under Order 39 Rule 2-
A C.P.C to approach the Trail Court and the remedy is not by
way of writ petition.
7. He further submits that the petitioner's representation
annexed to the petition, though is referable to Section 450 of the
Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') under
which the Commissioner has the power to revoke the building
permission granted to a person, if the same has been obtained
by suppressing material facts, but the petitioner has not
annexed any proof of submission of such representation before
the respondent No.3.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
9. So far as the petitioner's grievance against the respondent
No.5 is concerned in raising construction, as alleged over the
petitioner's land, the petitioner has already instituted
O.S.No.339 of 2015 in which as alleged the order to maintain
status quo has been granted and in view thereof, there is no
question of granting another order by this Court. It goes
without saying that the order passed by the Trial Court in the
suit is required to be complied by the parties and in case of its
disobedience the petitioner may approach the concerned Civil
Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C, if so advised or in such
other proceedings as may be open to him in law.
10. So far as the grant of building permission to the
respondent No.5, without considering the petitioner's
representation dated 22.12.2021, and after the grant of building
permission, the petitioner's representation dated 23.09.2022 for
revocation of such permission or for taking further action in
view of the facts disclosed by the petitioner before the
Commissioner, allegedly suppressed by the respondent No.5,
the Commissioner has the power and jurisdiction, under
Section 450 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
11. Consequently this writ petition is being disposed of
finally, to meet the ends of justice by passing the following
order:-
i) With respect to the petitioner's grievance of alleged
violation of the status quo order passed in O.S.No.339
of 2015, by the respondent No.5, the petitioner is at
liberty to approach the competent civil court in
appropriate proceedings as may be open to him under
law.
ii) The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam
Municipal Corporation, respondent No.3, shall
consider the petitioner's representation dated
23.09.2022, after affording opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner as also the respondent No.5, in
accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks
from the date the petitioner submits copy of this order
along with another copy of the representation dated
23.09.2022, before the respondent No.3.
12. It is clarified that this Court has not made any
observation on the merits of the petitioner's case as regards the
construction being raised on the petitioner's land or on the land
of respondent No.5; which it is for the Trial Court in the pending
suit to consider if such question is involved in the suit nor with
respect to the building permission in favour of respondent No.5
having been granted in suppression of any material fact or
otherwise, which it is for the respondent No.3 to consider.
13. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the above
observations and directions.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall also stand closed.
__________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Date: 03.11.2022
SCS
FFFFFFFFFHGHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGFFFKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKJJJJJKFDASDFKKKKLKKLHGGGFFFFFFFDSSSSSGG
GGGGGGHHHHHGHFSDAFSDAHLFJHSDFJASD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.35139 of 2022
Date: 03.11.2022
Scs
