Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.Mohd.Gulnaz Begum vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 2019
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.11262 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the inaction of the second respondent in considering the representation dated 03.6.2019 given by the petitioner for regularisation of the structures raised in premises bearing D.No.5-1-B in survey No.171, 5th Ward, Saidapet Main Road, Madanapalle, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department appearing for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent- Municipality.
3. The case of the petitioner is that originally an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents out of Acs.4.65 cents in survey No.171 of the then Madanapalle Village belongs to one Syed Gafoor. He sold the said land in favour of Reddy Dasthagir Saheb, whose grand-children have executed a gift- cum-settlement deed for an extent of 107.5 Sq.yards comprising of a tiled house, in favour of Reddy Mujamil. The petitioner purchased the said land from him by way of a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2012 and got mutated his 2 name in the Record of Rights. The petitioner's vendor obtained permission from the second respondent for construction of a building vide Building Application No.214/ G1/2011, dated 27.9.2011. After the petitioner purchased the property, she started construction of the building in terms of the construction permission granted by the second respondent. The third respondent, who is enemical towards the petitioner and her husband, filed W.P. No.339 of 2019 stating that the said construction was without any permission, and the said writ petition was disposed of, on 23.1.2019, directing the third respondent herein to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent. The second respondent issued a provisional notice under Section 228(1) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, on 18.2.2019, calling for the explanation from the petitioner as to why action shall not be taken on the ground that the petitioner started construction without any permission. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 28.2.2019. In the meanwhile, fresh application was submitted for building permission on 21.2.2019 in the name of vendor of the petitioner. Apprehending that the second respondent would initiate action for demolition of the structures, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5087 of 2019 and obtained interim direction not to demolish the structures. On 03.6.2019, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent to regularise the 3 construction under the Building Regularisation Scheme, 2019. Questioning the inaction of the second respondent in disposing of the representation dated 03.6.2019, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the application filed by the petitioner on 03.6.2019 will be disposed of in accordance with law.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation dated 03.6.2019, strictly in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J August 14, 2019 YS