APHC010070772019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 3190/2019 Between: Subham Builders ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.3190 of 2019 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in interfering with the construction activity of the Petitioner made pursuant to the building permit order bearing B.A.No.1086/2837/B/Z3/RAR/2017 dated 15.12.2017 without issuing any prior notice as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the A.P Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the predecessor in title of the Petitioner by name later B.Muthuswamy had acquired an extent of 2000 sq. yards with specific boundaries under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1959 bearing document No. 3598/1959 from one Lakshmi Ziauddin and others. Out of the total extent of 2000 sq. yards, the said Late B. Muthuswamy give an extent of 1600 sq. yards of the site for development along with one K.Ramakrishna Rao and others by retaining an extent of 400 sq. yards for himself. 3. Consequent to the development agreement, building plan was approved by the Respondent-Corporation and the building as agreed was constructed. As regards the balance extent of around 3 400 sq. yards, late B.Muthuswamy executed a Will dated 07.02.2004 bequeathing the property in favor of his daughter Smt. B.Vijayalakshmi. It is stated that Sri B.Muthuswamy died on 16.10.2008 and pursuant to the Will, Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi became absolute owner of the property. Subsequently, Smt. B.Vijayalakshmi died on 12.08.2014 and her son Murali Krishna Balakumar and her niece padma Murale succeeded to the property on the strength of the Will said to have been executed by Smt. B.Vijayalakshmi on 17.02.2014. On the basis of the said Will, the Petitioner entered into a registered development agreement-cum G.P.A with the successors i.e. B.Murali Krishna Balakumar and Smt. Padma Murale vide document No.120/2017 dated 29.12.2016. Subsequently, a ratification deed was also executed on 09.02.2018 bearing Document No.746/2018 as the date of the Will executed by Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi was wrongly mentined. 4. Pursuant to the development agreeemnt, the Petitioner applied for construction of a multi storied building in the balance extent of about 400 square yards. The said application for construction of residential building with three upper floors was permitted vide building permit Order 4 No.1086/2837/B/Z3/RAR/2017 dated 15.12.2017. Thereafter, while the Petitioner was taking steps to construct by demolishing the old building bearing Dr.No.10-50-18, the Respondent- Authorities restrained the Petitioner from proceeding with construction. In that context, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The Respondent-Authorities filed counter stating that in an extent of 1674 sq.mtrs., the Respondent-Authority had given building permission for construction of ground floor for parking (+) 4 upper floor vide proceedings dated 11.02.1986. A revised plan was obtained vide proceedings in R.C.No.3106/77/F3 dated 23.09.1988 and the revised plan was for cellar for hall + GF for parking + 4 upper floors and 3 units in 5th floor exempting setbacks from 6.40 meters to 3.05 meters. The revised plan was said to have been revoked by proceedings Lr.R.C.No.8602/02/CCP, dated 19.11.2009 and the original plan granted vide B.A.No.3353/85 was alone taken into consideration. 6. While so, the Petitioner had obtained building permission as referred above, which is in an extent of 328.65 square meters covered by previous approved plan. A show cause notice was issued on 05.08.2018 to the Licenced Technical person of the Petitioner and as no explanation was submitted thereto, the 5 building permission was revoked by order dated 16.03.2019. The Petitioner filed additional affidavit stating that the building plan in favour of the Petitioner on 15.12.2017 was for the land in the balance extent of 400 square yards of 33.43 square meters which is on the North Western portion of the original extent of 2000 square yards was given to Smt.B.Vijayalakshmi by way of Will as narrated above. A two (2) storied house was constructed vide building permission B.A.No.324/72G2 dated 26.09.1973 named „VIJAYA‟ bearing Door No.10-50-18. The Petitioner submits that the development agreement referred in the counter affidavit is in an extent of 1674 square yards and that the present building development agreement was to demolish this old premises and construct new building as per the sanctioned building plan dated 15.12.2018 vide B.A.No.1086/2837/B/Z3/RAR/2017. 7. Heard the respective counsel. 8. In the building plan sactioned in favour of the Petitioner, the premises number was specifcally mentioned as “10-50-18” and in the demand note issued by the respondent-authority towards the fees, it is mentioned in the “case type” as „Demolition and Reconstruction‟. 6 9. In the light of the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner and the fact that the Petitioner had specifically mentioned, Door Number and as the Respondent-authortity had acknowledged that the fees is being paid towards demolition and construction, makes it explicit that there was no suppresion of any fact by the Petitioner. The construction in the balance extent of land is required to be reconsidered as per the building plan dated 21.02.1986 vide B.A.No.3353/85 filed along with the counter affdiavit which was for 1674 square yards. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) the cancellation of the building permission vide impugned proceedings dated 16.03.2019 is set aside; (ii) The Petitioner shall submit explanation to the Respondent- authority explaining that the proposed construction is for demolition of building constructed as per B.A.No.324-72G2 dated 26.09.1973 physically and through LTP within a period fo four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and other necessary details. 7 (iii) On receipt of the explanation physically or through LTP, the Respondent-authorities shall consider the same within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 30.04.2025 KLP