Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V Jayaram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No:W.P.No.12320 OF 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
RNT,J
1. 09.05.2023 Heard Sri C. B. Rammohan Reddy, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C. B. Siddarth,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.
Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent No.3, Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 and Sri
K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent No.5.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that previously the 5th
respondent was granted the building permission on
15.11.2020, which was cancelled on 28.08.2021.
Challenging the said order, W.P.No.20322 of 2021
was filed, which was disposed of along with the
other W.P.No.7332 of 2021 and 7276 of 2021 filed
by the present petitioners, by common order dated
21.10.2022, setting aside the order of cancellation
and putting the building permission under
suspension till fresh decision was taken by the
Director of Town and Country Planning, who was
directed to pass fresh orders after affording
opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners in all
the writ petitions.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
3. This Court in judgment dated 21.10.2022
recorded a specific finding, after getting the survey
report which was not disputed by the parties, that
the approach road to the land of the developer is
not 40‟ or 33‟ width throughout its length.
4. The Director of Town and Country Planning
passed the order on 19.01.2023. The operative
portion of which reads as under:-
"The permission obtained by the M/s NJR
Constructions Pvt Ltd through ONLINE
APDPMS vide proceedings no.
1017/0425/B/Nan/SN/2020 dated
25.02.2021 is not getting access from the
existing 9.0 m wide road which mandates
as per Rule 53 (B1)(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.119
dt. 28-03-2017. Hence the V.C., KUDA
may be requested to take further
action a fresh for
revocation/Cancellation of building
permission obtained by the M/s NJR
Constructions Pvt Ltd through ONLINE
APDPMS vide proceedings no.
1017/0425/B/Nan/SN/2020 dated
25.02.2021 duly following the procedure as
per provisions of APMR&UDA Act, 2016.
The Commissioner Nandyal Municipality
and VC KUDA shall explore the options to
implement the layout road on ground in
the larger interest of the public."
5. Thereafter, the Vice-Chairman, Kurnool
Urban Development Authority (KUDA) passed the
order dated 21.03.2023 and thereby cancelled the
building permission of 5th respondent, recording the
following:-
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
"Therefore in light of the fact that
the approach road width is less than 9
m (30'-0') wide which is mandatory
requirement of the road width to
obtain permission and as the
developer M/s NJR Constructions
Private Limited has misrepresented
material facts while obtaining online
building permission through online
APDPMS and also the submitted reply
to the issued show cause notice is not
satisfactory and considerable.
Hence in exercising the powers conferred
under Rule 87 of APMR&UDA Act 2016, the
provisional building permission issued to
M/s. NJR Constructions Private Limited
through online APDPMS No.
1017/0425/B/Nan/SN/2020 dated
25.02.2021 is here by stands
CANCELLED/REVOKED."
6. Pursuant to the direction of the Director of
Town and Country Planning in the order dated
19.01.2023 to the Commissioner of Municipality VC
(KUDA) to explore the options to implement the
layout road on ground, in Principle layout was
passed.
7. Challenging the same the petitioners‟ filed
W.P.No.9544 of 2023.
8. In W.P.No.9544 of 2023, after considering
the facts and after hearing the counsel for the 5th
respondent as well, this Court granted the interim
order dated 18.04.2023, the operative portion of
which reads as under:-
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
"10. The parties shall maintain status-
quo, till the next date of listing, on the spot
with respect to the petitioners‟ property,
but so far as the finalization of in principle
layout is concerned, it is open to the
authorities to proceed in accordance with
law."
9. In the present writ petition, the petitioners
have challenged the fresh building permission
granted to the 5th respondent, on 05.05.2023.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the building permission has been granted on
the application of the 5th respondent showing in the
schedule of the boundaries, „abutting road width as
10 metres‟. He submits that as per Rule 53, Table
14 B-1, for Non-High Rise (Residential) Buildings
including Group Housing (Cellar and/or Stilt as
permissible + maximum up to 5 floors), the
abutting road width required is 9 metres. He
submits that the previous building permission of the
5th respondent was cancelled on 21.03.2023 on the
ground that the abutting road is less than 9 metres.
But now the fresh permission has been granted
showing the width on the 5th respondent application
as 10 metres.
11. Learned counsel for 5th respondent submits
that pursuant to „in principle layout dated
17.03.2023‟, considering the same, building
permission has been granted. He submits that the
petitioner had previously transferred the land to 5th
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
respondent which forms part of the abutting road.
12. „In principle layout‟ dated 17.03.2023 is the
subject matter of W.P.No.9544 of 2023, in which
this Court while directing parties to maintain the
status-quo on spot with respect to the petitioners‟
property also provided that so far as the finalisation
of in principle layout is concerned, it is open for the
authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
13. Let the counter affidavit be filed by the
respondents within a period of four (04) weeks.
14. W.P.No.9544 of 2023 is fixed for 13.06.2023.
15. List on 13.06.2023, along with W.P.No.9544
of 2023.
16. Prima facie, taking into consideration the
finding recorded by this Court in judgment dated
21.10.2022; the order of the Director of Town and
Country Planning dated 19.01.2023 and the order
of Vice-Chairman, Kurnool Urban Development
Authority (KUDA) dated 21.03.2023 referred to
above, the impugned fresh building permission to
respondents appears to be contrary to Rule 53 of
the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017.
17. Prima facie even if, the building permission
has been granted, pursuant to „in principle layout‟,
in view of the interim order the status-quo on spot
cannot be changed pursuant to the new building
permission granted based on „in principle layout‟.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
18. As an interim measure, it is provided that on
the spot the parties shall maintain the status-quo
and any construction violating the status-quo shall
not be raised pursuant to the fresh building
permission order dated 05.05.2023.
________
RNT,J
Scs
