Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Konathala Govindarajulu vs C.M.Saikanth Varma,Ias on 27 November, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: C.C.No.5757 OF 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
02. 27.11.2023 RNT, J
Sri C.M. Saikanth Varma, Commissioner,
Grater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,
(GVMC) Visakhapatnam is present in person.
He is represented by Sri K. Madhava Reddy,
learned standing counsel for GVMC.
2. The operative portion of the judgment in the
writ petition in paras 55 and 56 reads as under:
"55. In the result, the writ petition is allowed
setting aside the building permission granted to
the respondents 5 and 6 vide permit
No.1086/2996/B/Z4/BEM/2020 dated
23.07.2022 by the Greater Visakhapatnam
Municipal Corporation.
56. It is further directed that if any
application is filed for grant of building permit
order with respect to the property in question,
the GVMC shall provide opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners and keeping in view this judgment
shall consider any such application."
3. Pursuant to the notice issued in the
contempt case, counter affidavit has been filed
by the 1st respondent-Commissioner.
4. Sri K. Mahdava Reddy, submits that the
copy of the order of the writ court was served.
He submits that the respondent No.6 in the writ
petition applied for building permission and
obtained the same on 15.09.2023, through
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
online. He further submits that by virtue of
condition No.16 the final approval of the
proceeding is subjected to verification of reports
and documents by concerned official including
the site visit report and any deviation identified,
would lead to modification/rejection of the
proceedings. He further submits that in view of
Rule 3(22)(c ) of A.P. Building Rules, 2017,
unless and until final approval of proceedings of
building plan, are issued mere sanction of
building plan through online, cannot be
comprehended as the Corporation granted the
building plan.
5. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, further submits that
the building permission has been granted to an
extent of 647.11, situated in Sy.No.11/4E,
whereas, the building permission previously
granted, which was set aside by the writ court
was for 742.34 sq. yards in Sy.No.11/4F. The
property thus, is situated in two different survey
numbers and therefore it cannot be said that
the building permission has been granted with
respect to the property involved in the writ
petition.
6. He further submits that the Corporation
has issued shortfall notice vide endorsement
dated 28.10.2023 to the respondent No.6 and
therefore it cannot be said that the 1st
respondent has accorded final approval of
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
building plan. In view of the submissions, the
1st respondent has not committed any wilful
disobedience of the judgment of the writ court.
7. On consideration of the above submissions,
as also the counter affidavit of the 1st
respondent, it is evident that any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner was not afforded before
the building permission was granted to the
respondent No.6, which is contrary to the
directions of the writ court. The respondent No.6
applying online and getting the building
permission online cannot be a ground or reason
to justify non compliance of the judgment of the
writ court. The fact remains that the
respondent No.6 obtained building permission
in which the petitioner was not provided
opportunity of hearing.
8. So far as Survey No. and the contention
based thereon is concerned 11/4F or 11/4E,
there is nothing on record to indicate that the
area for which building permission is now
granted, is different than the area over which
previously building permission was granted
which was set aside by the writ court. Any
applicant by changing the survey number and
the area, cannot get away from compliance of
the writ court's order and particularly when in
this case, no exercise has been done to
determine the area over which the building plan
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
has been now granted, falls within which
survey number. Even if the application was
filed for building permission giving different area
and different survey number, to comply with the
writ court's order, in letter and spirit,
opportunity should have been given to the
petitioner in terms of the writ court's order,
which was not done.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that pursuant to the new building permission,
the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition
have started constructions.
10. The Commissioner, GVMC submits that
pursuant to the shortfall notice issued by
GVMC, the construction which has been
stopped.
11. Prima facie, this court is of the view that
the respondent has disobeyed the judgment
passed by the writ court and in view of the
stand as taken in the counter affidavit as also
submitted before the court, it, also prima facie,
appears to be wilful.
12. At this stage, Sri K. Madhava Reddy,
learned standing counsel, and also Sri S.M.
Saikant Verma, Commissioner, GVMC, submit
that an opportunity may be granted to do the
needful to comply with the writ court's order.
13. Considering the aforesaid request, the
matter is posted on 18.12.2023, to enable the
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
1st respondent to make compliance of the
judgment dated 19.06.2023, passed by the writ
court.
14. The 1st respondent shall ensure that the
construction which was started and has been
stopped is not resumed by the concerned
respondents in the writ petition.
15. The respondent-Commissioner shall
appear in person on the date fixed.
__________
RNT,J
Gk.
