KOHINOOR BUILDERS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 28,1992

KOHINOOR BUILDERS Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KALASAGARAM SECUNDERABAD CULTURAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1997-9-58] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sivaraman Nair, J. - (1.)This Writ Appeal is filed from the Judgment in Writ Petition No.4564/1985 and Review W.P.M.P.2621/86. The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous by judgmnet dt.28-1-1986. Appellant filed a Review application, which was dismissed on 26-3-1986.
(2.)Appellant claims that the firm which he represents had 8,000 square yards of land in between Ravindra Bharathi on the one side and Reserve Bank of India building on the other. The firm had applied for permission to construct two residential blocks and one office block in the above area. The residential blocks were to consist of 1+12 and 1+13 storeys each whereas the office block was to consist of ground and two upper floors. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad granted permission for construction of 1+11 and 1+12 floors in the two residential blocks and 1+1 floors in the office block. That permission was granted on 15-5-1981. It appears that there was some objection relating to the construction of the above building, in an area which was ear-marked for public and some public purposes. In the session of Legislature on 3-8-82 while answering a question by one of the local M.L. As., the Minister concerned stated that the permission to construct the building was granted by the Municipal Corporation, after due verification of title. It was also asserted that there was no violation of building rules in the grant of such permission. Appellant asserts that that reply was signed on behalf of the Government by Sri G. Venkata- ramana Reddy, who was then the Secretary in the Department of Municipal Administration.
(3.)Apparently on the basis of the complaint, the Government examined the question of grant of permission for construction of the building and on some deliberation, which is evident from the files which the Government Pleader had produced, the Government issued an order on 26-8-82 pointing out a number of irregularities in the grant of permission to construct the building and required the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, to take necessary action. The Corporation issued a notice to the builder (appellant) on 4-9-82 to show cause as to why the permission should not be recalled for the alleged violations. The appellant/builder submitted the explanation on 13-9-82 maintaining that the Municipal Corporation was right in granting permission in strict compliance with the requirements of the statute, the rules and the Urban Development plans. On 25-9-1982, the Municipal Corporation issued an order requiring the builder to stop the construction. Promptly, appellant filed W.P.No.7266/82 and obtained an interim order on 12-10-1982 against the proceedings issued by the Corporation under Section 450 of the Municipal Corporation Act. By virtue of those interim orders, appellant continued and completed the construction by January, 1984. We are informed by counsel for the appellant that the above Writ Petition was dismissed in 1986 as infructuous, because the construction, as we have mentioned above, had been completed by January, 1984. Appellant asserts that the residential block consisted of 92 flats and most of them had been sold out almost simultaneously with the completion of the construction, whereas it is asserted by the respondents that the sale of the flats were much prior to the issue of the completion certificate which was obligatory for any such sale and was therefore irregular and illegal. We are however not concerned with that controversy in this Writ Petition.
;


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