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 4, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Adda Sai Uma Sankhar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 November, 2022

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI


             WRIT PETITION NO.37049 OF 2022


COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri Eluru Shesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Naresh for 2nd respondent-The Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration has accepted notice for the 1st respondent.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Notice No:145/1075/ELR/UC/2022, dated: 22.08.2022 by the respondent No.2 herein as illegal arbitrary and untenable, unsustainable and stale in law and consequently to set-a- side the same being violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by further directing the respondents not to insist the petitioner for removal of the construction in question as already the construction was stopped, until the payment of B.R.S.-Building Regulation Scheme-Charges as and when ordered by the concerned authority and to pass such other order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted building permission for G+2 on 24.11.2022. A provisional order dated 25.05.2022 was passed noticing the violation/deviation being carried out by the petitioner to the sanctioned plan, and a show cause notice was given, giving the details of those deviations and violations identified also directing to stop further construction.

4. The petitioner initially filed the response on 31.05.2022, admitting that one fourth has been deviated and requested that the petitioner was ready to pay the deviation charges at the time of BRS.

5. Another notice dated 12.08.2022, in continuation of the first notice, was given to the petitioner to remove the structure which was constructed differently in deviation of the building permit.

6. The petitioner filed reply/explanation on 16.08.2022 admitting that he had constructed another floor but trying to justify the same that the same was constructed due to the housing loan being over sanctioned and again expressing that he may pay the deviation charges for the additional floor within the BRS.

7. The Commissioner/2nd respondent after considering the petitioner's reply and explanation passed the order of confirmation dated 22.08.2022 confirming the show cause notice/provisional order issued and directed the petitioner to bring down the construction within the specified period, otherwise action will be initiated against the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act.

8. The only submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is ready to make payment of the deviation charges.

9. Sri G. Naresh, learned Standing Counsel, submits that there is no BRS Scheme in force at present. He further submits that the petitioner has himself admitted that the construction raised by him is contrary to the building plan. The petitioner has raised an additional floor as well and has raised certain constructions in deviation to the building plan, as identified and mentioned in the provisional order.

10. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is admitted by the petitioner that the constructions which the petitioner raised are in deviation of the building permit. An additional floor has also been constructed.

11. The confirmation order has been passed after considering the petitioner's reply.

12. In the absence of any BRS at present, there is no question of the unauthorized construction to be regularized by making payment of the due charges as alleged.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place before the Court any rule under which such construction can be regularized.

14. The order under challenge has been passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. There is no merit in the writ petition.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Consequently, there to, all the miscellaneous petitions are closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI Date: 16.11.2022.

ASH 208 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI WRIT PETITION NO.37049 OF 2022 Date: 16.11.2022 ASH