NARASIMHA REDDI Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by a resident of Anand Nagar Colony Hyderabad, seeking to quash an order of demolition of June 24 h, 1978 made by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation acting under the provisions of the HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1955, 1955.

(2.) The petitioner applied to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for grant of permission to construct a new building in his open plot of land situated in Anand Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, In that application of his accompained by his building plan, he had asked that the 36 feet wide road on the southern side of the then proposed construction should be treated as the front portion. According to that plan, 10 feet open space on the eastern side throughout was to be left unbuilt and 5 feet on the western side was to be left unbuilt In the rear portion he was to leave 12 feet open space between the main building and the garage lumber room and more than 10 feet between the lumber room and the compounj wall. In the plan he submitted, be applied for permission for construction of W.Cs and bath-room abutting the western compound wall and touching the store-room in the rear. He had also sought permission to construct a projection in the front portion facing 36 teet wids road But the Municipal Corporation had refused permission for the construction of W. Cs. and bath-rooms abutting the western wall on one side and the rear store room on the other and also for the construction of projections in the front portion In the plan as approved by the Corporation there should be more than 10 feet open space left in the front portion and in the rear side there should be more than 10 feet open space left and in the eastern side there should be 10 feet open space left and and on the western side there should be more than 5 feet open space left. But now the petitioner had constructed his building considerably deviating from the plan as sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. Such construction is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) According to Section 440 Clause 1 of the Act, a person should not continence the erection of any building until he had given notice of his intention to do so and the Municipal Corporation had either intimated its approval to the construction of such a building or failed to intimate its disapproval thereof within the period statutonly prescribed. It was in compliance with these requirements of Section 440 Clause (1) the petitioner had submitted his building plan and sought and obtained permission of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for the construction of a new building according to that plan. Now the construction of a building in a crowded and busy metropolis like Hyderabad and for that matter in any crowded area always requires to be closely and strictly controlled by law in the interests of general public. Construction of buildings cannot be left completely to the individual choice of convenience and comfort. Such constructions can only be permitted within the parameters laid down by the comrnunity through its law. A building of a house in a metropolis involves not merly the pers nal comfort and the welfare of the individual builder but also the comfort and the welfare of the entire community. It is for that reason that in addition to the laying down of the requirement of giving advance notice, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act authorised the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to make building regulations. In exercise of those statutory powers, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation framed the Building Bye-laws of 1972 forbidding construction of buildings otherwise than in accordance with those building bye-laws. These regulations are made for the purpose of ensuring supply of free light and free air and ensuring maintenance of hygienic conditions for those living in Hyderabad. These bye-laws give advance intimation to the intending builders as to what is permitted and what is forbidden. Of those bye laws as we are concerned with the prohibitions contained in bye-laws Nos. 26,27, and 28, they may be read here in full:

(3.) Notwithstanding the fact that the Municipal Corporation had unequivocally rejected the petitioner's application for the construction of W. Cs and bathrooms on the western side, the petitioner had now constructed four W.Cs and four-bath-rooms on the western side of his house and had also built a balcony over them, all admittedly in violation of the above building bye-laws. On the eastern side, the petitioner built without leaving either 10 feet open space as proposed by him in his plan or at least 5 feet open space as required by the aforesaid bye-laws, particularly bye-law No. 28. He had now built his house in such a way that on the north-east corner of his house, there is less than 5 feet open space left. According to the records produced by the Municipal Corporation the petitioner built up his house in such a way that only 4 feet open space was left on the north-east corner. On the western side the position is even much worse. On the north-west corner, there is not even 2 foot left. According to the sketch prepared by the Municipal authorities, and placed before the Court on the north-west corner, there is only 1 feet 10 inches open space left. Even according to the petitioner, there is only 2 feet left on the northest corner. Parallel to the western compound wall except at the far end of the house on the south-west corner the open space left by the petitioner is considerably less than 5 feet. According to a plan produced by the petitioner it is uniformly 2 feet. Now on the fear side, according to the plan submitted to the Corporation and approved by it, there should have been more than 10 feet open space left. But the petitioner had sold away a portion of that open space and constructed a compound wall reducing the open space to less than 5 feet. Thus, the petitioner had constructed his building materially contrary to the permission granted by the Corporation although not very materially different from the plan which he had submitted but which was rejected by the Municipal Corporation. What is more significant is the fact that the construction as carried out by the petitioner is something totally forbidden by the above building bye-laws of the Corporation.