Telangana High Court
Siliveri Bhumanna vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WP.Nos.7888, 7890 and 7899 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective respondents, in all the writ petitions, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petitions at the admission stage, and the lis involved in these Writ Petitions, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.4 in all these Writ Petitions is not necessary for adjudication of these Writ Petitions.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that they are the owners of individual extents of properties situated in survey Nos.2-90/E/1, 5-88A and 5-86/2, respectively, of Market Road, Manthani; and that they had made construction of individual RCC buildings consisting of Ground + 2 upper floors by obtaining individual permissions from the respondents-authorities.
2
5. Petitioners further contend that while they had made construction as per their respective sanction plans, the respondents-authorities have issued impugned proceedings holding that the they have made construction in deviation of the sanction plans/permissions by not maintaining the setbacks as specified in the building permissions.
6. Petitioners further contend that prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings, in response to the show-cause notices issued by the respondents-authorities, they have submitted explanations claiming that they made construction strictly in accordance with the sanction plans and in spite of the aforesaid explanations, the impugned orders have been passed directing the petitioners to remove the deviations in the setback portions within three (03) days, failing which, the respondents- authorities have threatened that the authorities would take further action in the matter.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the respondents-authorities while according building permissions/letter of approval for commence of work in favour of the petitioners, respectively, had specified the set backs that were required to be maintained by the petitioners while making construction as per the sanction plans.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioners however made construction without maintaining the prescribed setbacks as noted in the building permissions and letter of approval issued to them; that the authorities have initially issued show-cause notices and 3 after considering the replies/explanations submitted thereto by the petitioners, the authorities have once-again issued further notices to the petitioners on 05.02.2024 directing the petitioners to remove the deviations made in the setback portions to bring the buildings in conformity with the sanction plans/letter of approval; that as the petitioners failed to remove the deviated portions, the authorities have issued the impugned proceedings directing the petitioners to remove the same within (7) days, failing which, the authorities would take further action in the matters.
9. On the aforesaid submissions being made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-authorities, the counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions in reply submits that if the petitioners were given three (03) weeks time, the petitioners themselves would remove the deviations made in the construction, in particular the set backs that are required to be maintained on all sides in order to bring the building in conformity with the sanction plans/letter of approvals.
10. On the aforesaid submission being made by the counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that despite affording sufficient time to the petitioners to rectify the deviations made in the construction and bring the same in conformity, the petitioners failed to undertake such corrective measures, which had resulted in the unofficial respondent No.4 approaching this Court and filing writ petition vide W.P.(PIL)No.60 of 2023, whereby the respondents-authorities have initiated further action for removal of the 4 encroachment and it is for the said reason, the authorities have restricted the time to (03) days for the petitioners to undertake the corrective measures.
11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent further submits that if the petitioners file separate affidavits with the 3rd respondent-authority undertaking to bring the buildings in conformity with the sanction plans/letter of approvals for commencement of work indicating therein the time as sought for from this Court to remove the deviation(s) to bring the construction in conformity with the sanction plan, the authorities would take steps to enforce the impugned orders after the period of three weeks as sought for from this Court, if the petitioners fail to file an undertaking affidavit as noted above and take steps to remove the deviations, or if the petitioners file an undertaking affidavit and fail to adhere to the time period mentioned in the said affidavit.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. Having regard to the submissions made as above and since, the petitioners have now indicated to this Court that the they would remove the deviations made in the construction, in particular, with regard to the set backs that are required to be maintained as per the sanction plans/letter of approvals, respectively, on all the sides of the buildings being constructed by them, this Court is of the view that that petitioners should be directed to approach the 3rd respondent-authority and file an affidavit on or before 01.04.2024 undertaking to remove the construction 5 made in the setback area in deviation of the sanction plan/letter of approval for commencement of work issued in order to bring the buildings in conformity with the sanction plans within a further period of three (03) weeks thereof. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioners not filing an undertaking affidavit as directed above, or filing an undertaking affidavit as directed above, but failing to adhere to the timelines fixed by this Court as above, the respondents-authorities are at liberty to initiate further action against the construction made by the petitioners, which is admittedly in deviation of the sanction plans, in order to bring the building in conformity with the sanction plans.
14. Subject to the above observations and directions, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 27th march, 2024.
gra