Nos.1 to 3 in preventing the illegal constructions being carried v. No.4 at D.No.54-16-6/1 of Gunadala & Ors.

- This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in preventing the illegal constructions being carried by respondent No.4 and others at D.No.54-16-6/1 of Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District contrary to the plan without leaving sufficient space for set backs, as illegal and arbitrary; and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to stop the illegal constructions by considering the representations, dated 10.02.2011 and 08.04.2011, of the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the aforementioned house having purchased the same through a registered sale deed. Adjacent to the house of the petitioner, on the northern and western side, respondent No.4 and six others are constructing five storied building (apartment) without leaving any set backs and making constructions contrary to the approved building plan. Though the petitioner made oral complaints to respondent Nos.2 and 3, no action has been initiated. He also made representations, dated 10.02.2011 and

08.04.2011, to respondent No.2 but no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that notice under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 was issued to respondent No.4 and the developer for which they stopped the construction and that further course of action would be taken as per the procedure laid down in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.

No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 inspite of granting sufficient time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.4, along with other co-owners, is making constructions illegally deviating from the sanctioned plan and therefore, prays to give a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take suitable action.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the officials of respondent No.2 visited the premises in question and found that there were certain deviations and therefore, they would take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to respondent No.4 and other co-owners.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 stated that an opportunity may be given to respondent No.4 in representing the case before respondent No.2.

There cannot be any dispute that a construction of the lay out has to be made in accordance with the sanctioned plan. There should not be any deviations as per the bye-laws. It is the duty of respondent No.2 to see that a person cannot proceed with construction deviating from the sanctioned plan. When the Corporation finds any deviations from the sanctioned plan, it has to take necessary action after giving a reasonable opportunity to the affected person or persons. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to respondent No.4 and other co-owners.