SHERIFF IQBAL HUSSAIN AHMED DIED Vs. GOVT OF A P
LAWS(APH)-2001-6-9
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 13,2001

SHERIFF IQBAL HUSSAIN AHMED (DIED) BY LRS. Appellant
VERSUS
GOVT.OF A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) One Sri Sharif Iqbal Hussain Ahmad, petitioner herein filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restrain the un-official respondent No.4 from constructing the first floor on the premises bearing No. 11-40-2 situated at Pulaparthi Street, Vijayawada, which is in violation of the zoning regulations and municipal bye-laws and to pass any other order or orders in the interest of justice.
(2.) This Court by order dated 13-5-1997 while admitting the writ petition, passed an order in WP MP No. 12885 of 1995 directing the 4th respondent to stop further construction. This Court also passed orders in WPMP No. 12886 of 1997 directing the Commissioner, Vijayawada, Guntur and Tenali Urban Development Authority (herein after referred to as UDA) to see that the unofficial 4th respondent does not violate the regulations or the building bye-laws. In WPMP No. 12885 of 1985, as per the orders of this Court, it is seen that notice to the 4th respondent seemed to have been issued and when the said WPMP came up for hearing on 27-6-1997, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that inspite of the orders passed by this Court, dated 13-5-1997, the 4th respondent is going ahead with the construction work and the 3rd respondent is not able to curtail the 4th respondent from making further constructions. In those circumstances, this Court by order dated 27-6-1997 directed the 3rd respondent to report this Court about the stage of construction within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and also directed the concerned police including the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada to give effect to the orders of this Court dated 13-5-1997 and prevent the 4th respondent from making any kind of further construction and if the 4th respondent is found violating the said order, suitable action will be taken.
(3.) From the counter of the 3rd respondent it is seen that he seemed to have sent a report to this Court on 5-7-1997, wherein he stated that the 4th respondent has constructed ground floor and first floor and the same was completed except finishing work like flooring, etc., in the 1st floor. The ground floor was let out for shops but not yet been occupied. He also stated that the UDA granted permission for conversion of the tiled roof as per the orders of the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 199 MA, dated 8-2-1995 where under certain zoning regulations were relaxed in favour of the 4th respondent.;


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