Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

While so, the Chief City Planner issued notice dated 27-8-1998 to both the owners of the premises in question alleging that they had obtained the regularisation order dated 26-6-1998 by material suppression of facts and by playing fraud and called upon the owners of the property to submit their representation or explanation within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their explanation disputing the allegations made in the notice about the misrepresentation of facts or playing any fraud while obtaining regularisation orders in respect of the constructions effected by them. However, the Commissioner passed orders dated 23-10-1998 in respect of both the orders in question, cancelling the permits granted to them regularising the deviations or unauthorised constructions by order dated 26-6-1998. Questioning the said action of the Commissioner, the 1st two writ petitions are filed by the owners.

3. The other two writ petitions are filed by the two neighbours of the above referred property complaining the deviations as well as the unauthorised constructions effected by them thereby affecting their rights apart from alleging that the said deviations and unauthorised construction are in contravention of the provisions of M.C.H. Act and the Building Bye-laws. Their grievance is that though representations were made to the concerned officials of the Corporation, they did not take any action and therefore they were constrained to approach this Court seeking Writ of Mandamus, In these writ petitions they are also assailing the jurisdiction and powers of the Government in issuing various Government Orders including the one G.O. Ms. No.289 dated 25-5-1998 as well as G.O. Ms. No.419 dated 30-7-1998 which empowers the Commissioner of the Corporation to regularise the constructions that are effected in deviation of the sanctioned plan as well as unauthorised constructions effected by the owners of plots below an extent of 200 Sq. mtrs. According to these petitioners, the Government has no jurisdiction either to relax the existing laws or to regularise the illegal and unauthorised constructions. Hence, they sought for quashing of the Government Orders authorising the Commissioner of M.C.H. to regularise the deviated and unauthorized constructions. The Petitioners in these writ petitions also sought for a direction to take appropriate legal action to demolish or to remove the unauthorised and deviated constructions effected by the owners in the above referred premises.

4. The learned Counsel Sri M.R.K. Chowdary appearing for the owners of the premises in question contended that the impugned order dated 23-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the learned Counsel though a show-cause notice dated 27-8-1998 was issued by the Commissioner except stating that there was misrepresentation and playing fraud no details of the said alleged misrepresentation and the fraud played by the owners were not specified in order to give an opportunity to the owners to explain the said alleged misrepresentation and the fraud played. In the absence of any such clear reference to the alleged misrepresentation or fraud played by the owners, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is liable to be struck down on that simple ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the purpose of issuing a notice is to give an effective opportunity to the affected party before passing any order to explain the allegations made against them, but the notice is silent about the allegations. The vague reference of material misrepresentation of facts or playing fraud would amount to denial of opportunity to explain those allegations. Further, the learned Counsel contended that the impugned order was passed on 23-10-1998 cancelling the regularisation of the deviations/ unauthorised constructions on the grounds which are not specified in the notice. It is contended that the owners of the premises submitted their application jointly for the sanction of a plan for the construction of the building in question. As there were certain deviations or additions over and above the sanctioned plan, in fact they made an application to the Government for regularisation but before any order is being passed by the Government, as the Government issued various Government Orders for regularisation of deviations and unauthorised constructions, the owners made their application to the Commissioner and thereafter those applications were considered and after due verification of the constructions effected on the ground, passed orders regularising the deviations, therefore, there is absolutely no misrepresentation of facts or fraud played by the owners. Hence sought for quashing of the impugned proceedings.

5. A detailed counter has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner disputing and denying the allegations made by the owners. In the counter, it was mentioned as to the violation of the sanctioned plan with reference to the open space to be left as per the rules as well as the sanctioned plan and the deviations. As per the counter, the owners have effected constructions deviating the setbacks on all the directions. It is further stated in the counter that when the Corporation was about to take action in respect of the deviated constructions, the owners filed a suit in the Civil Court as O.S.No.4610 of 1997 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained injunction restraining the M.C.R from interfering with the construction and bringing down the constructions made. Subsequently, the owners approached the Government seeking relaxation of zoning regulations and the Government asked for the remarks of the Corporation by Memo dated 9-4-1998. Meanwhile certain objection petitions were received from the neighbours and in the meanwhile G.O. Ms. No.423 dated 31-7-1998 was issued introducing a new policy, as a result of which the regularisation requested by the owners was not considered by the Government. Thereafter, the owners filed applications for regularisation of the building under G.O. Ms. No.289 dated 25-5-1998. In the said representations, the owners have represented that the site was less than 20 sq. mtrs., and therefore basing on the said representation the deviated constructions were regularised. In the counter it is admitted that as the deviated constructions were regularised due to misrepresentation of facts, notice was issued and thereafter the regularisation orders were cancelled.