Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The sum and substance of the both the writ petitions are the first one is in complaining in action of the 2nd respondent Municipality for directing to take action against the said Chenchaiah and Subhashini for removal of the illegal constructions made in the premises Door No.13-9, Sivalayam Veedhi, Venkatagiri Town, in contravention of the building permit, dated 18.09.2015, and not to allow the use of residential building for commercial purpose and the subsequent writ petition prayer by Chenchaiah and Subhashini is impugning the notice, dated 10.03.2017, referring to the construction made in deviation to the approved plan in B.A. 47/G1/2015 contrary to the A.P. Building Rules, 2012 (for short, Rules, 2012) and zoning regulations and even earlier notice under Section 228(1) and (3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) issued seeking explanation for the construction with deviations made as to why cannot be removed, which is with no reply and no compliance by removing the deviations or violations and referring to W.P.No.5978 of 2017 filed by Murali and Prabhakar Rao, there was a direction to dispose of the representation of them to the Municipality for removal of the constructions made in deviation to the building permit and in directing under Section 228(1) & (3) and 340 of the Act, 1965, and Rule 27 of the Rules, 2012, to remove the deviated and violated portion, failing which, the same will be removed by the Municipal Authorities.

7. The affidavit averment of W.P.No.9673 of 2017 of Chenchaiah and Subhashini are that they are absolute owners of the house bearing No.13-09, purchased old building bearing No.1-11 with an extent 284 sq. yards site in Sy.No.279, Ward No.13, from Ch.Indira, who is the mother of Prabhakara Rao supra, under registered sale deeds, dated 26.04.2000, 27.07.2000 and 24.04.2000, for lawful considerations and they dismantled the old building and constructed new one after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities and covered by the municipal sanction permission by proceedings, dated 18.09.2015, having spent huge amount by availing loan from Andhra Bank in construction of the building. It is however averred that they are not aware of the building permit rules and from instructions of their mason mastry they constructed additional floors to suit their future requirements and in the construction they have not deviated in leaving setbacks except making few adjustments as per vaastu. The area known as Shivalayam street is a old locality and the house sites are lying in narrow width and none of the residents of the locality left any setbacks. Respondent Nos.3 and 4-Murali and Prabhakar Rao, being adjacent owners to them with municipal No.13-8 and 13-10 respectively on either side, constructed their buildings without leaving any setbacks and they are inimical towards them from local political factions and in order to trouble them W.P.No.5978 of 2017 filed by them alleging as if they deviated in construction of the building/approved plan/sanctioned plan and obtained interim order in W.P.M.P.No.7323 of 2017, dated 22.02.2017, directing the 2nd respondent-Municipality to consider their representation, dated 11.07.2016, for removal of the deviations in the construction of the building. In fact, the said Murali and Prabhakar Rao did not raise any objection at the time of construction, though they are neighbours, and having allowed to proceed with the construction later started threatening to cause demolish. The said Chenchaiah and Subhashini were advised and accordingly submitted a representation to the Municipality on 05.01.2017 to regularise their construction with revised plan and necessary challans, dated 02.03.2017, which are pending with 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent-Municipality pursuant to the interim order of the High Court, dated 22.02.2017, supra, issued notice, dated 10.03.2017, bearing No.8/2015 under Section 228 and 340 of the Act and Rule 27 of the Rules in directing to remove the deviations within 10 days, else to cause remove and above notice strangely reflects earlier notices said to have been issued on 29.12.2015 and 13.07.2016, though the said Chenchaiah not aware of such notices. The constructions made by them no way infringed the rights of the said Murali and Prabhakar Rao including from the additional constructions and the said notice is unsustainable and there was no any prior notice under Section 217 of the Act before issuing the impugned notice under Section 228 and 340 of the Act and said notice is at the influence of said Murali and Prabhakar Rao, they submitted revised plan and sought for the regularisation and the impugned notice for removal of the deviations thereby unsustainable and thereby constrained to file writ petition, for the reasons of the said notice is incomplete, vague in directing to cause remove the building without issue any show-cause notice under Section 217 of the Act and without considering their representation that revised plan for regularisation and thereby liable to be set aside/quashed.

8. In W.P.No.5978 of 2017 the counter-affidavit with stay vacate petition filed by Chenchaiah is practically reproduction of the writ petition averments of him of W.P.No.9673 of 2017 and several of those facts no way requires repetition including those denying the writ petition affidavit averments of W.P.No.5978 of 2017. What they further stated at best from the total reading closely is that even under Section 228 of the Act, the Commissioner may issue provisional order directing the owner to remove or alter or pull down any building which is constructed in deviation to the sanction plan or without sanction plan and he does not confer power on removal illegal construction except to invoke penal provisions under Section 340 of the Act and if the prosecution initiated by the Municipality under Section 340 and fails then it is precluded from issuing fresh orders requiring the owner of building to demolish and the use of the wording may and not shall in Section 228 of the Act is clear in this regard. Almost all buildings in the locality have no permissions and applications for regularisation with compounding fees alleged to have been rejected by the Municipality. The setbacks required are left till the building line and in fact the constructions made by Murali and Prabhakar Rao, without leaving setbacks, are required to be removed.

20. The pleadings, documents and other material brought on record disclose a very sorry and sordid State of affairs prevailing in the matter of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the city of Cuttack.

Builders violate with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge in deviations much to the prejudice of the planned development of the city and at the peril of the occupants of the premises constructed or of the inhabitants of the city at large. Serious threat is posed to ecology and environment and, at the same time, the infrastructure consisting of water supply, sewerage and traffic movement facilities suffers unbearable burden and is often thrown out of gear. Unwary purchasers fin search of roof over their heads and purchasing flats/apartments from builders, find themselves having fallen prey and become victims to the designs of unscrupulous builders. The builder conveniently walks away having pocketed the money leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in the event of unauthorized constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition. Though the local authorities have the staff consisting of engineers and inspectors whose duty is to keep a watch on building activities and to promptly stop the illegal constructions coming up, they often fall in discharging their duty. Either they don't act or do not act promptly or do connive at such activities apparently for illegitimate considerations. If such activities are to stop some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and non-compoundable deviations. The unwary purchasers who shall be the sufferers must be adequately compensated by the builder. The arms of the law must stretch to catch hold of such unscrupulous builders. At the same time, in order to secure vigilant performance of duties, responsibility should be fixed on the officials whose duty it was to prevent unauthorized constructions, but who failed in doing so either by negligence or by connivance.