1 APHC010071052014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 37411/2014 Between: J. Nagamani W/o. J. Rambabu ...PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T S VENKATARAMANA 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not according permission for revised plan dated 08.03.2010 in respect of building D.No.40-2-14, Laxminagar, Labbipeta, Mogalarajapuram, Vijayawada vide endorsement in Rc.No.G1-100406/2014 dated 13.02.2014 by considering various representations dated 13.07.2010, 03.01.2011, 12.07.2011, 21.02.2013, 11.11.2014 and undertaking affidavit dated 22.08.2013 as well as the orders of this Honble Court in WP No.21576/2013 dated 26.08.2013 as illegal, null and void by issuing consequential order directing the respondents to accord permission for revised plan dated 08.03.2010 forthwith…...” 2. The petitioner was owner and possessor of site of an extent of 406 Sq.yards situated at Laxminagar, Labbipeta, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada. There was an old construction in the said land which was inherited by the petitioner from her mother. The petitioner submitted a plan for approval of building construction on 12.02.2008 by demolishing the existing building bearing D.No.40-2-14, to construct ground + three floors besides parking area. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent sanctioned the plan vide B.A.No.56/2008 dated 12.02.2008. After obtaining the necessary permission from various authorities including the 2nd respondent, the petitioner started construction and completed the same in the year 2011 as per the approved plan. 3. While the matter being so, during the inspection made by the 2nd respondent Corporation, certain minor deviations were found. Accordingly, as advised by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has submitted her revised plan 3 on 08.03.2010 enclosing FAR bonds with 51.00 lakhs with registration No.2010-MNG-111524 requesting to approve the revised plan. Inspite of her repeated representations, the respondents did not accord permission for her revised plan. In fact the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent under RTI Act to know the stage of her application dated 28.02.2011. In turn the 2nd respondent issued an endorsement dated 01.04.2011 stating that the application filed by the petitioner is under process and the action will be taken. Though the endorsement was given on 01.04.2011 and even after receipt of so many representations from the petitioner the respondents neither accorded nor refused the revised plan. 4. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.21576 of 2013 questioning the action of the respondents in not according permission for revised plan dated 08.03.2010 in respect of subject property, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.08.2013 directing the respondents to take into consideration the undertaking affidavit furnished by the petitioner and deal with her request dated 08.03.2010 in respect of premises bearing D.No.40-2-14, Laxminagar, Labbipeta, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada and pass appropriate orders therein preferably within 30 days from the date of the order. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of furnishing an undertaking affidavit in pursuance of the specific directions given by this Court on 26.08.2013, the respondents have not proceeded further. As such, the petitioner submitted another representation on 28.11.2013 and 27.12.2013 4 requesting them to take appropriate steps to regularize her plan at an early date. As there was no response, the petitioner filed contempt case in C.C.No.136 of 2014. Thereafter, the respondents issued an impugned endorsement dated 13.02.2014 informing that the building which was constructed with deviations in respect of setbacks may not be considered for revised plan as per Rules, by considering the FAR bonds and also requested the petitioner to furnish the proof of purchase/vendors of FAR bonds in Annexure-11 to take further action and to avoid legal complications. Immediately, on receipt of the said endorsement the petitioner made enquiries in the 2nd respondent office and it is learnt that the respondents are unable to trace out her file and the bonds therein to take further action. As the authorities could not find her file as well as the FAR bonds therein, they are refusing to accord permission to revised plan on one pretext or other, which is unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation furnished a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 07.01.2025, wherein it is stated that after receiving repeated representations from the petitioner on 13.07.2010, 03.01.2011, 12.07.2011 and 21.02.2013, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner vide Rc.G1-162888/2014, on 14.03.2015 and accordingly the petitioner appeared for the personal hearing on 18.03.2015. During hearing, the petitioner stated that she had submitted a representation on 08.03.2010, duly enclosing original TDR/FAR Bond, but she was not issued any 5 acknowledgement. This statement was found to be incorrect, as there is no such practice of taking original TDR bonds at the time of submission of application. Original bonds are collected only when the approval is granted. Moreover, it was clarified that there is no provision for utilizing the FAR/TDR Bonds for regularizing setback deviations. These bonds are meant for constructing additional floors, so, the submission of TDR bonds does not arise in the present case. After personal hearing, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 22.04.2015, rejecting the petitioner’s application for issuance of revised plan. The same was communicated to the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.G-1-162828/2014 under acknowledgement. So far, the petitioner has not raised any objection regarding the rejection of the revised plan proposal. 7. In view of the same, instead going into the merits of the case as the revised plan application of the petitioner submitted in the year 2013 was already rejected by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 22.04.2015, this Court is of the opinion that no cause survives in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the proceedings dated 22.04.2015. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.02.2025 KGR