BOLLA SIVA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-2020-12-37
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 23,2020

Bolla Siva Venkateswara Rao Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J. - (1.)This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the official respondents in not considering the petitioners' representations as illegal, arbitrary and for directing the respondents not to regularize the illegal portion of the building said to have been constructed by the respondents and for other reliefs.
(2.)This Court has heard Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel for that petitioners and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, standing counsel for second respondent, Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Jyoti Prasad for the unofficial respondents.
(3.)Counsel for the petitioners argues that the writ petitioners are the owners of property, which is in a group housing called Ganesh Residency. Petitioner No.1 acquired the property called GF-1 of Ganesh Residency through a sale deed dated 13.05.2015. Petitioner No.2 has acquired the property called SF-1 of Ganesh Residency on 30.03.2015 through a registered sale deed. Learned counsel points out that these issues are not in dispute. He points out that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have illegally constructed a flat on the 3rd floor of the building in the year 2016 without an approved plan. As a result of this, learned counsel submits that the parking area, water, drainage and all other facilities/amenities, which are shared commonly are depleted and are not available. He also submits that because of lack of parking area, the cars are being parked outside and water facility is also drastically reduced particularly in summer. Apart from that, he submits that an unauthorized construction should not be approved at all. He points out that the petitioners have submitted their representations periodically as detailed in the writ petition and that the respondents are not considering the same. Learned counsel also argues that a direction should be given to the respondents not to regularize the illegal portion constructed on the 3rd floor. Learned counsel points out that even though there is a scheme for regularization of unauthorized constructions issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 04.01.2019, he argues that the said scheme is not applicable because of class 7(i) which is as follows: "Penalization cannot be made of sites under legal litigation/disputes regarding ownership of the site/building".
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.