Writ Petition No. 20847 of 2011. Case: A.P. Rao Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and Others. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 20847 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas and For Respondents: Dr. Y. Padmavathi |
| Judges | Mr. C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Section 440 and 440(2) |
| Judgement Date | September 06, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Mr. C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
-
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter, bearing No. 98/ACP/CX/GHMC/2011, dated 24.05.2011, of respondent No. 2.
-
The petitioner obtained building permission vide permit No. 2/96 on 18.12.2009 for construction of stilt for parking and four upper floors over plot No. 208, Prashashan Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. According to the conditions of permit and also the statutory requirement, the petitioner has to commence construction within one year from the date of grant of permission and complete the same within three years thereafter.
-
By notice, vide letter bearing No. 98/ACP/CX/GHMC/2011, dated 03.02.2011, respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that he has not commenced the construction work within one year and hence, the permission is deemed to have expired. The petitioner was accordingly called upon to submit fresh proposals along with plan showing clear site terrain and structural designs, enclosing NOC and plans attestation of the Managing Committee, Prashashan Nagar Cooperative House Building Society (for short 'the Society') as required under the Society's bye-law No. 33 for granting a fresh permission.
-
In reply to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.02.2011, wherein he has denied the allegation that he has not commenced the work within one year. He has stated that the plot is covered with huge sheet rocks and the rock cutting work was going on for the last several months. It is further explained that as deployment of heavy machinery and blasting was not permitted in view of existence of houses in the neighborhood, the rock cutting work could not be completed and that added to the same, heavy rains have made the compound wall falling on the rear side damaging the construction equipment. It is also stated that the petitioner constructed a compound wall with two rooms and obtained water and electricity connections, which show that the construction was commenced within one year after obtaining permission. The petitioner submitted further explanation on 10.04.2011, wherein he has reiterated his stand that he commenced work within one year and that the construction activity was going on slow pace because of huge volume of rock.
-
By order, dated 24.05.2011, respondent No. 2 concluded that the cutting of sheet rock was completed after completion of one year and therefore, the permission is deemed to have expired. It is also alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial