Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M. Mutyala Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 August, 2019

Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi

Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi

      THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                      Writ Petition No.12302 of 2019

Order:

       This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the second

respondent in not considering the representations of the petitioner dated

27.06.2019 and 08.07.2019 etc., for removal of the unauthorized

constructions made in the setback area in Hi-Rise Paradise Apartments,

situated in Gadalamma Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari

district, as illegal and arbitrary.

       The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of Flat No.A4,

situated in Hi-Raise Paradise Apartment, Rajamahendravaram, East

Godavari district; the second respondent has granted building permission

for stilt + Ground + 4 floors vide building permit order dated 30.01.2016;

according to the said permission granted by the second respondent, the

builder shall not make any construction in the parking area and in the

setback areas of the apartment; contrary to the said permission, the third

respondent has constructed Toilets, Generator room etc., in the 10 feet

setback area; as the third respondent is making constructions without

leaving any setback area, the petitioner filed representations on

03.04.2019, 08.05.2019, 27.06.2019 and 08.07.2019 requesting the

second respondent to remove the constructions made in the setback area

which are constructed contrary to the permission granted to the third

respondent; as the second respondent did not take any action on the said

representations, the present Writ Petition is filed.

       When the matter is taken up for admission, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second

respondent would consider the representation of the petitioner.
                                          2




       In view of the same, the second respondent is directed to dispose

of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after giving

notice and opportunity of hearing to the third respondent, and

communicate the same to the petitioner.

       The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs.

       As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.


                                             _____________________________
                                              KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.

Date: 28.08.2019 Nsr 3 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Petition No.12302 of 2019 Date: 28.08.2019 Nsr