IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11316 of 2008 Between: Smt. M. Sunitha W/o. M. Balraj R/o. H.No. 8-2-138, Kattarampur Lane, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Karimnagar. 2 The Town Planning Officer, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. 3 The Building Inspector, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. 4 R @ K. Chandana W/o. K. Srikanth R/oa. H.No. Kattarampur, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No. 1 to 3 pursuant to the Complaints dt. 10-3-2008 and 7-4-2008 lodged by the petitioner as being illegal, and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to take necessary action forthwith to remove the illegal, constructions being constructed by the 4th Respondent in premises situated in Sy. No. 940 Kattarampur, Karimnagar and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following : O R D E R: 1. This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by Smt.M.Sunitha assailing the inaction of R1 to R3 on the complaints filed by her with regard to the illegal constructions being made by 4th respondent K.Chandana. The petitioner is the owner of house bearing No.8-2-138, Kattarampur Lane, Karimnagar. She constructed the house in the year 2005 as per the sanctioned plan. R4 is the owner of the house, which is to the north of the house of the petitioner. The petitioner lodged a complaint on 10.3.2008 complaining that the 4th respondent is proceeding with the construction of the building in violation of the sanctioned plan. It is further alleged in the complaint that R4 is constructing bathrooms and lavatories in the ground ﬂoor and the ﬁrst ﬂoor facing to her entrance, which is likely to cause lot of nuisance due to emission of bad smell. She requested R1 to take necessary action on her complaint with regard to the unauthorized constructions being made by R4. There being no action on the part of R1 to R3 in stopping the unauthorized constructions being made by R4, she approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Rule nisi came to be issued on 28.5.2008. An interim direction was granted to stop further constructions OF R4 vide WPMP.No.14679 of 2008. 3. R4 entered appearance and ﬁled WVMP.No.2562 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. The vacate stay petitioner took the plea that she completed the construction and what remained was only finishing work. 4. An order came to be passed on 13.9.2008 directing R1 to depute one of his responsible oﬃcers to inspect the premises of R4 and to verify whether the vacate stay petitioner (r4) completed the constructions or the constructions are in progress. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, R1 submitted a status report. The relevant portion of the report reads as under: “ On Physical veriﬁcation, I could not ﬁnd any construction activities are going as on today in the premises of Smt.K.Chandana. She has completed ground ﬂoor building and slab and brick work completed in the first floor building.” 5. The case of R4 as set out in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the vacate stay petition, in brief, is that she completed the construction in February 2007 itself and that some miscellaneous work remain to be attended. It is further stated that she applied for regularization of the constructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan and her application is pending consideration. 6. R4 also ﬁled additional counter aﬃdavit on 20.9.2008. Para 3 of the additional counter affidavit reads as under: “ I submit that we have ﬁled material papers to show that we have already applied under BPS scheme and paid the requisite fee. The particulars of the deviations etc., are already mentioned therein. The competent authority has sanctioned building construction permission vide their proceedings in R.O.P.No.G1/211/2007, dated 23.3.2007 (B.A.No:516/G1/C.C. No.211/2007, dated 23.3.2007 as the sanction plan) in favour of the vacate stay petitioner/4th respondent in the W.P. for the construction of ground plus ﬁrst ﬂoor in the said plot. Pursuant to the same we have actually started the construction of the house in the month of April 2007 itself and in fact the ground ﬂoor slab and ﬁrst ﬂoor slab were laid in the month of September 2007 itself. The process of raising the walls and completing them, getting the electrical work done, ﬁnishing the walls etc. were thereafter taken up and in fact major work of the house was completed much before the month of December 2007 and this fact is known to the writ petitioner and her husband also who was visiting their house every now and then. Now they are trying to interpret that we completed the house in the month of February, 2008. What was intended by saying that the construction of the house was completed by February itself is only to say that majority of the work has been completed by then and not that we constructed the entire house in February. In fact as on February 2008 only minor works such as ﬁnishing of the main compound wall and installation of a gate, ﬁnishing of the staircase, ﬂooring in the ﬁrst ﬂoor and painting work are left. I most respectfully submit that we could have completed the said works also but for the untimely and unfortunate death of my mother in the month of November 2007. The allegations of the writ petitioner that we started unauthorized constructions in the ﬁrst week of March and that despite their objections we went ahead is incorrect and is made only for the purposes of this case and is therefore denied. If the said allegations were to be taken as it is it would only be highly improbable that we would be able to start constructing and competing the house in March 2008 itself. Therefore, the words that we completed the constructions in February could not be taken up in isolation and can only interpreted to mean that majority work was completed by then.” 7. The petitioner ﬁled reply aﬃdavit on 10.9.2008. It is stated that R4 made constructions after the cut oﬀ date i.e. 15-12- 2007 and therefore the application submitted by R4 for regularization of constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan cannot be entertained. 8. When the vacate stay petitioner came up for consideration with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for R1 to R3 and learned counsel for R4. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the constructions that are being made by R4 are in deviation of sanctioned plan and therefore he cannot be permitted to complete the constructions. A further submission has been made that R4 is constructing bathrooms and lavatories in deviation to the sanctioned plan and the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan are likely to cause nuisance to the petitioner and that R1 has to initiate necessary action against R4 for removal of bathrooms and lavatories in the first floor as well as first floor. 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for R1 to R3 submits that as on this day there is no construction activity being carried on by R4. 12. Learned counsel appearing for R4 submits that the R4 completed the constructions but for internal ﬁnishing works before the cut oﬀ date i.e. 15.12.2007 and therefore the application ﬁled by R4 for regularization of the constructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan needs to be considered in accordance with the provisions of Building Penalization Scheme. A further submission has been made that if the constructions of the petitioners are causing any nuisance to the petitioner, the petitioner has to work out his remedies in the civil Court. 13. A fact remains that R4 submitted application for regularization of the constructions made by him in deviation of the sanctioned plan and his application is stated to be pending. The status report submitted by R1 is explicit that as on this day there is no construction activity in the premises owned by R4. If the constructions already made by R4 are causing any nuisance to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court for necessary relief. 14. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing R1 to R3 to take further action for removal of the constructions made by R4 in deviation to the sanctioned plan, after the disposal of the application filed under BPS Scheme. 6th November, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11316 OF 2008 6TH NOVEMBER 2008.