APHC010749922013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 35180/2013 Between: 1. MATTAPALLI VISWESWARA RAO, S/O.MATTAPALLI CHALAMAIAH, R/O.PLOT NO.37/A, PANDURANGAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM,REP.BY HIS AGREEMENT OF SALE WITH POSSESSION CUM GPA HOLDER M/S.G.N.CONSTRUCTIONS, 38- 30-123/39, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNSER MR.BARKAT ALI, S/O.SADIK AHMED, AGED 44 YEARS ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS, SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT,HYDERABAD 2. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. 2. The Prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit the Petitioner herein respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent in B.A.No.13269/2013/ACP- IV/G2 dated 26-06-2013 (received by the petitioner on 19.7.2013) rejecting the plan submitted by the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary ,unreasonable without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act consequently direct the respondents herein to consider and approve the plan submitted by the petitioner herein and pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The above Prayer would indicate that the Application made by the Writ Petitioner on 17.06.2013 was rejected by the Impugned Proceedings dated 26.06.2013 (Ex.P.1). 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken this Court through the Application submitted by the Petitioner dated 12.06.2013 (Ex.P.20) vide the Impugned Order dated 26.06.2013. The Application dated 12.06.2013 would indicate that the Petitioner has requested the Respondent Corporation to grant permission for laying of 5th Floor with a plinth area of 27.66 Mts x 6 slabs equivalent to 1.25 Mts against the proposed relaxation or alternatively to issue 3 TDR against five slabs removed measuring 2019 meters. This Application of the Petitioner was considered and rejected by the Impugned Proceedings. 5. The 1st Respondent who filed the Counter-Affidavit dated 21.12.2017 has narrated the sequence of events that have happened. Para 7 of the Counter-Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder: “7. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted revised plans for construction of Stilt + Ground + 4 upper floors in the above site with a total builtup area of 2119 Sqm (which is 104 Sqm more than what was earlier permitted) by seeking certain set back relaxations ie., proposed 2 Mts on two sides instead of required 3.50 Mts and proposed 1.69 Mts to 2.19 Mts on the rear side instead of required 3.50 Mts. Though there is no provision in the building rules to consider any set back relaxations for the land affected in construction of retaining wall, the GVMC on the humanitarian grounds keeping in view the loss sustained by the petitioner due to demolition of already constructed Stilt + Ground + 4 upper floors framed structure has considered the setback relaxations as a "special case" and granted building permission to the petitioner for construction of Stilt + Ground + 4 upper floors with a total Built up area of 2119 Sqm which is 104 Sqmt. more than the Built up area permitted earlier. Having satisfied with the same, the petitioner has constructed the new Building as per the revised permission issued by GVMC. Recently GVMC has also issued Occupancy Certificate to the above building on 13/05/2013.” 6. The above extract would clearly indicate that the Respondent Corporation has taken into consideration various aspects and had already given several relaxations and granted building permission to the Petitioner to construct stilt + ground + 4 upper floors with a total built-up area of 2119 Sq. Mts. which is 104 Sq. Mts. more than the built-up area that was permitted to the Petitioner earlier. It is also stated that having been satisfied with the same, the Petitioner has already constructed the new building as per the revised permission issued by the GVMC and the GVMC has issued Occupancy Certificate to the above building on 13.05.2013. 4 7. Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation would submit that on humanitarian ground, for the loss suffered by the Petitioner, the Respondent Corporation has already given maximum relaxation and had permitted the Petitioner to build an extra space of 2119 Sq. Mts. more than the buildup area permitted earlier and no further relaxation or permission can be granted for construction of 5th floor. 8. This Court has perused the contents of the Counter-Affidavit, particularly, Para 4 to 8. In Para 8, it has been categorically stated that in order to be eligible for grant of approval for the 5th floor, the minimum area of built-up should be 1000 Sq. Mts. and total height of the building, including the stilt floor, shall not exceed 18 meters. In the present case, the height of the existing building itself is already 18 meters, and if 5th floor is allowed, the height of the building would exceed 18 meters and attracts High Rise Building Regulations which requires minimum 7 meters all round setback for movement of Fire Tenders and also requires prior NOC from Fire Service Department and Air Port Authority of India. It is also stated that the proposal of the Petitioner does not satisfy the above requirements and therefore the GVMC has not considered the request of the Petitioner for grant of 5th floor and accordingly the Impugned Proceedings dated 26.06.2013 has been issued. 9. This Court has also perused the Re-joinder filed. However, the Writ Petitioner has not rebutted any of the contentions raised in the Counter- Affidavit. 10. This Court, having considered the facts of the case and also perused the record along with the contents of the Counter-Affidavit, is in complete agreement with the averments made in the Counter-Affidavit that only sites which are about 1000 Sq. Mts. and above can be considered for the grant of stilt + ground + 5 floors, whereas the Petitioner’s site measures only about 853.13 sq. yards. Therefore, the maximum number of floors permissible is 5 only 5 floors, i.e., stilt + ground + 4. In the present case, the Respondents have already allowed stilt + ground + 4 floors, thereby making the complete height as 18 meters. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 05.03.2026 DSV 6 149 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 35180/2013 05.03.2026 DSV 7 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 35180/2013 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 05.03.2026 GRKP, J Writ Petition is dismissed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 8