Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent herein by the Town Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle No. 2, it is stated that the 1st respondent purchased the said premises' bearing House No. 21-2-142/1 to 4 from her sister Smt. Suraji Bai under registered sale deed dated 10-1-1984 and that the said Suraji Bai purchased the said premises from one Liaquatinnisa Begum under registered sale deed dated 14-4-1976. The plan of the said premises attached to the sale deed dated 10-1- 1984 is at variance with the plan attached to the sale deed dated 14-4-1976 and the former plan included portions of public road on the Western and Northern sides of the said premises as part of the said premises which are therefore encroachments. It is also stated that subsequent to G.O. Rt. No. 1835, M.A., dated 29-10-1984 referred to earlier where-under the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted relaxation, the 2nd respondent released the permission under Permit No.61/51 dated 28-11-1984 to the 1st respondent. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is also stated that the 1 st respondent started construction in the said premises a building for commercial purposes even though the relaxation given in the said G.O.Rt. was only for residential purposes. It is also stated that. the 2nd respondent issued notice to the 1st respondent under Section 452 of the Act dated 9-5-1985 stating that the R.C.C. columns were raised by the 1st respondent on the second floor without permission and therefore were unauthorised constructions and contrary to the sanctioned plan and that the 1st respondent gave a reply dated 10-9- 1985 stating that she was not intending to construct the second floor and that she had already given an undertaking dated 26-11-1984 to that effect to the 2nd respondent. Not satisfied with the said reply, the 2nd respondent issued final notice under Section 636 of the Act to the 1st respondent directing her to remove the unauthorised erection of the columns on the second floor and that thereafter the 1 st respondent filed the said O.S. No. 56 of 1985 before the Vacation Court at Hyderabad which was subsequently numbered as O.S. No. 1932 of 1985 on the file of the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is also stated that even after the decree dated 24-2-1986 in the said O.S. No. 1932 of 1985, the 2nd respondent proceeded with the construction of the second floor and filed E.P. No. 57 of 1986 for regularisation of all unauthorised constructions including the second floor which was dismissed on 5-10-1987. Prior to that the 1st respondent submitted to the 2nd respondent on 24-4-1986 the building plan along with a copy of the said decree dated 24-2-1986 in O.S. No. 1932 of 1985 duly showing the proposals of columns raised up to 9' height and parapet walls. However, later on 29-3-1988, the 1st respondent submitted a building application to the 2nd respondent with separate plan including second floor and remitted the building permit fees etc., for the second floor on 5-4-1988. The 2nd respondent refused the same by its letter No. 142/1/2/21/1988 dated 12-4-1988 which was received by the 1st respondent's husband on 28-4-1988. Thereafter on 8-7-1988 the 2nd respondent directed the 1st respondent to remove the unauthorised constructions immediately, followed by notices under Section 452 of the Act dated 11-7-1988 and under Section 636 of the Act dated 14-7-1988. The 1st respondent filed suits O.S. No. 2685 of 1988 and O.S. No. 2758 of 1988 on the file of the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained status quo orders in respect of the said notices. It is also stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent that after the order in E.P. No. 3 of 1988 dated 6-12-1989, the 1st respondent did not submit the plans for regularisation but directly approached the Ilnd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court for regularisation of the deviations and unauthorised constructions. The 2nd respondent contends that the said order of the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P. No. 3 of 1988 dated 6-12-1989 is contrary to the order in E.P. No. 57 of 1986 dated 5-10-1987 and that the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to fix the compounding fees and to regularise the deviations and unauthorised constructions made by the 1st respondent herein. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is also stated that the 1st respondent also proceeded unauthorisedly with the construction of the third floor in the said premises without any permission whatsoever.

In Pratibha Co-operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court observed as follows (at page 1456):--

"We are also of the view that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions and unauthorised encroachments is increasing in the entire country and such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands. Such unlawful constructions are against public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings."

The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the impugned orders of the lower Court regularising the unauthorised constructions/deviations should be allowed to stand. The unauthorised constructions questioned by the petitioners are not trivial in nature but include the entire second and third floors. The petitioners also question the unauthorised conversion of the premises for commercial use. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners are neighbours to the suit premises. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to reject the revision petition on the ground that the petitioners have no standing.

Hence it is prayed that this hon'ble court be pleased to execute the decree by levying the compounding fee and by endorsing on the plans on behalf of the J Dr about the regulari-sation of the construction and deviation shown in plan subject to the terms of the decree return the plan to the decree holder and pass any other order or orders as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

What is stated on the face of it appears to be innocuously simple. But the plan which was filed along with the said petition showing the deviations and unauthorised constructions to be regularised included the second floor plan. The plan attached to the original order of the IInd Assistant Judge in E.P. No. 3 of 1988 dated 6-12-1989 has an endorsement thereon with his signature as follows:--

"The deviations marked in red colour are hereby regularised as per orders passed in E.P. 3/88 in O.S. 1932/85 dt. 6-12-89 and as per orders dt, 7-3-90 passed in E.A. 23/90 in E.P. 3/88 in pursuance of the decree dt. 24-2-86 passed on the basis of settlement before the Lok adalat in L.A.542/86 dt. 25-1-86."

The entire second floor plan including the halls, rooms, toilets, balcony and stair case shown therein are marked in red. The question that immediately arises is whether this was the plan which was submitted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent for regula-risation of the constructions shown in the plan in terms of the decree on 23-4-1986, as claimed by her in E.P. No. 3 of 1988. The IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that this was the plan submitted to the 2nd respondent on 23-4-1986 as claimed by the 1st respondent in her petition. If that is so, the second floor must have been constructed by the 1st respondent by 23-4-1986 i.e., even by the time earlier E.P. No. 57 of 1986 was filed. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent tried to contend that the second floor was not constructed even by the time the said E.P. No. 57 of 1986 was dismissed on 5-10-1987 and in support of the same, he refers to the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent filed in the present Civil Revision Petition wherein she stated that she applied for the construction of the second floor only on 5-4-1988 and also informed the 2nd respondent on 2-5-1988 that in the event no communication was received by her she would commence the construction of the second floor and that she subsequently wrote to the 2nd respondent that she commenced the construction as provided under S. 437 of the Act. On the basis of the said averment of the 1 st respondent in her counter affidavit, the learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent did not construct any second floor before 1988 and that therefore the observations of the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court in his order dated 5-10-1987 while dismissing E.P. No. 57 of 1986 that the 1st respondent in fact constructed the second floor by then and thus violated the condition in the decree dated 24-2-1986, is without any basis and factually incorrect. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent cannot stand scrutiny for more than one reason. The first reason is that merely because the 1st respondent applied for the construction of the second floor only on 5-4-1988, it does not follow that she did not already complete the construction of the second floor unauthofi-sedly. The second reason is that in her petition in E.P. No. 3 of 1988 the 2nd respondent did not state that she did not construct the second floor by 1-2-1988 when she filed the said E.P. and there was no express contention raised in the said petition that the finding recorded in the order dated 5-10-1987 dismissing E.P. No. 57 of 1986 was factually without any basis she could have easily got the same verified at that time by having a commissioner appointed for spot inspection and had the truth out. The third reason is that the record of the Ilnd Assistant Judge in E.P. No. 3 of 1988 has only one plan referred to earlier, wherein the full second floor was delineated as a deviation and unauthorised construction to be regularised, and which was in fact regularised by the endorsement made by the IInd Assistant Judge as already stated above; which means that that was the only plan filed along with F.P. No. 3 of 1988. If really there was no unauthorised construction of the second floor by the time E.P. No. 3 of 1988 was filed, it takes lot of explanation for the 1st respondent to explain how such a plan found place in the record of the said E.P. The fourth reason is that the decree dated 24-2-1986 as per the settlement arrived at only provided for the 1st respondent to apply to the 2nd respondent for regularisation of "the suit constructions" by levying compounding fee with, requisite number of plans showing the unauthorised construction/deviations. Therefore the regulations contemplated were only in respect of the unauthorised constructions covered by the notices issued by the 2nd respondent which were questioned in the suit O.S. No. 56 of 198,5 and not any constructions made subsequently. It is not the case of the 1st respondent as per her plaint filed in the said O.S. No. 1932 of 1985 that she constructed halls, rooms, toilets and balcony in the second floor by the time she filed the said suit. As per the said plaint, she only constructed certain columns and a parapet wall. Therefore she cannot have all the other constructions in the second floor like halls, rooms, toilets and balconies etc., regularised pursuant to the said decree dated 24-2-1986 unless she claims and satisfies that the said further constructions were made with the specific permission of the 2nd respondent. The record in E.P. No. 3 of 1988 does not disclose that the 1st respondent put forward any such claim or any material to establish that the said additional constructions were with the specific permission of the 2nd respondent. It is also to be noticed in this connection that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is stated that though the 1st respondent applied for permission for the construction of the second floor on 5-4-1988 the 2nd respondent refused to give such permission and communicated the same to the 1st respondent by its letter No. 142/1/2/21/1988 dated 12-4-1988 which was received by her husband on 28-4-1988 and that the 2nd respondent directed the 1st respondent by noticedated 8-7-1988 to remove the unauthorised constructions immediately and also issued notices under S.452 dated 11-7-1988 and under S.636 dated 14-7-1988 in respect of which the 1st respondent filed suits O.S. Nos. 2685 and 2758 of 1988 on the file of the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. From this it is very clear that the further constructions in the second floor were without any specific permission of the 2nd respondent. Another aspect to be noticed is that the relaxation granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Rt. No. 1835 dated 29-10-1984 was subject to the condition that the 1st respondent should not propose further vertical expansion at any: time in future and that she should not project balconies towards western and northern sides and that the 2nd respondent should take necessary action accordingly and issue a building permit to the 1st respondent. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is not a party to the said 6.S. No. 1932 of 1985. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent in the said E.P. No. 3 of 1988 it was also contended that the 2nd respondent had no authority to compound the construction of the full second floor by the 1st respondent and to regularise the said construction and that the authority to do the same, if at all, was the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It was precisely because of the unauthorised, construction of the second floor and the conversion of the use| of domestic place as commercial one by fixing the rolling shutters to the shops in the ground floor that the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court earlier dismissed E.P. No. 57 of 1986 on 5-10-1987.