HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29495 of 2011 Date of Order:17.11.2011 Between: Karri Venkata Krishna Reddy ..Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector and Special Officer and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PEITTION No.29495 of 2011 ORDER :- This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the structures in stilt and ground ﬂoor at Plot Nos.47 and 59, L.P.No.31/2005/R, Lakshmi Narayana Nagar, Kakinada without giving reasonable time as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the structures at Stilt and ground ﬂoor till the end of the academic year 2011-2012. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are as follows:- The petitioner is the absolute owner of land to an extent of 1200 square yards in plot Nos.47 and 59 in L.P.No.31/2005/R, Lakshmi Narayana Nagar, Kakinada. On the petition made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent after thorough enquiry and physical inspection of site in question, approved the building plan and granted permission for construction of stilt + ground ﬂoor + 4 upper ﬂoors vide proceedings No.B.A.No.366/2010/G1, dated 17.08.2010. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s.Aditya Academy Educational Society. After completion of the entire construction of the building the petitioner is running Junior College in the said premises in the name of Aditya Junior College by obtaining approval from the concerned authorities from time to time. In order to facilitate the attendants of the students, for running the computer classes and technical labs, the petitioner made temporary partition in the stilt area and the said area is not being used for parking purpose, which is duly informed to the 2nd respondent authority. On 16.09.2011 an unfortunate incident had been taken place that an apartment by name Syamala Shadan was collapsed and the stilt and ground ﬂoor have sunk into ground. Because of that unfortunate incident, the 1st respondent have started a special drive and issued notices to the educational institutions running in multi storied buildings and thereby, 1st respondent issued a notice through 2nd respondent vide U.C.No.6/2011-TPBO-II, dated 23.09.2011, under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the H.M.C.Act”) calling the petitioner to show cause why the deviations and constructions made in violation of sanctioned plan in the above said door number should not be removed. Thereby, the petitioner made a detailed explanation on 28.09.2011. But the 2nd respondent without considering the said representation issued notice under Section 636 of the H.M.C.Act and directed the petitioner to remove the deviations made in the ground ﬂoor within 24 hours or else the Corporation shall remove the same at the cost of the petitioner. The petitioner made another explanation on 05.10.2011 requesting the respondents to reconsider the issue of demolition. It is further submitted that on 29.10.2011 the petitioner attended the meeting held by the respondents and informed the authorities that the petitioner is running the educational institution in the subject building and it is very diﬃcult and inconvenient to the students to make immediate alternative accommodation for running technical labs and requested the respondents to grant time for removing the temporary partitions in the Cellar area at the end of Academic year 2011-2012. For that the respondents have agreed and directed the petitioner to give undertaking to that eﬀect. Accordingly, the petitioner made an undertaking in writing on 31.10.2011 to that effect. Inspite of the undertaking given by the petitioner the respondents are making hectic eﬀorts to remove the temporary structures in the ground floor. Hence, the writ petition. 3. A detailed counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the 2nd respondent denying the material allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the 2nd respondent issued a notice under Section 452 of the H.M.C.Act after detecting the deviations made against the approved plans with details of deviations made in the structure duly giving seven days time to show cause as to why deviations should not be removed and to rectify the deviations made in the structure. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner informed that he obtained permission for stilt + ground ﬂoor + four upper ﬂoors and there are no deviations in the construction of the building. The construction was made covering the stilt ﬂoor with library and ground ﬂoor + four upper ﬂoors, which was total deviation to the approved plan. Since the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory, the 2 nd respondent issued the present impugned order under Section 636 of the H.M.C.Act directing the petitioner to remove the deviations made in the subject building within 24 hours. Before issuing the said notice, a meeting was conducted by the District Collector and Special Oﬃcer with all the managements of the Educational Institutions on 01.10.2011 and in the said meeting, the Secretary, Aditya Educational Institutions i.e., authorized person on behalf of the petitioner requested time upto 12.10.2011 for removal of the unauthorised and deviated constructions, especially the structures made in the parking ﬂoor. Even after issuance of the impugned order under Section 636 of the H.M.C.Act, the petitioner has not taken any steps for removal of the deviated and unauthorized constructions made in the subject building. The District Collector and Special Oﬃcer again convened a meeting with the managements of Educational institutions and owners of the buildings on 29.10.2011 and in the said meeting the representative of the petitioner’s institutions requested further time for one week for removal of the unauthorized structures. After the said meeting, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that he would remove the unauthorised/deviated structures at the end of the academic year 2012. But the 2nd respondent has not informed its acceptance or approval on the representation of the petitioner. Though the petitioner asked one week time for removal of the unauthorized structures during the meeting on 29.10.2011, he has not removed the illegal structures. In the counter, the 2 nd respondent has given a detailed table with regard to the deviations made to the approved plan by the petitioner, which is as follows:- Sl.No. Description As per approved plan As on ground Deviation 1. Set Backs Front 3.00 mts 0.50 mts 2.50 mts Rear 3.00 mts 1.10 mts 1.90 mts Side 1 2.00 mts 1.67 mts 0.33 mts Side 2 6.25 & 9.28 mts 16.91 mts -- 2. Usage Residential Educational Violation to Z.R. 3. No. of Floors Stilt+GF+ 4 Floors Covered stilt Floor + GF + Four upper floors -- 4. Parking Entire Stilt Floor 449.82 Sq.mts Covered with Library Covered with Library Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stilt and ground ﬂoors are being used for the classrooms of intermediate students being run by Aditya Academic Educational Society; that by the end of the academic year 2011-2012, the petitioner would remove the unauthorised constructions or deviations, if any, which are contrary to the sanction plan; that time may be granted for removal of the unauthorised constructions till the end of April, 2012. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the site is ear-marked for parking, but the stilt and ground ﬂoors are being used for the purpose of class rooms without there being any sanction or permission and, therefore, the Municipal Corporation has rightly issued the proceedings under Section 452 and 636 of the H.M.C.Act, 1955 and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 5. The petitioner has given an unconditional aﬃdavit stating that he would remove the illegal structures, as speciﬁed in the notice, dated 05.10.2011, issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 636 of the H.M.C.Act by the end of academic year 2011-12 i.e., on or before 30.04.2012, failing which the 2nd respondent is at liberty to remove the unauthorised constructions without giving any further notice and that the said undertaking is given with his free will and consent without any coercion and undue influence. 6. Admittedly, the educational career of the students will be aﬀected if unauthorised structures are removed during this academic year and the students would suﬀer irreparable loss. Students have to prosecute their studies regularly. Hardly four or ﬁve months time is available for the students for preparation to public examinations. So, at this point of time, if the unauthorised structures are removed by the Corporation, it would cause undue hardship to the students who are prosecuting their Intermediate Education in the college. 7. Considering the said fact and accepting the unconditional aﬃdavit, a reasonable time can be given to the petitioner to enable it to remove all unauthorised structures and deviations, if any, as mentioned in the notices issued under Sections 452 and 636 of H.M.C.Act, by the end of April, 2012. A further order is not required for removal of those illegal structures or deviations made by the petitioner. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has not honoured his undertaking, he is liable for prosecution under contempt proceedings, which will be taken suo motu. If the petitioner fails to remove the structures, the respondent can remove the structures in the month of May, 2012 and recover the costs incurred for removal of the structures from the petitioner. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J November 17, 2011 lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29495 of 2011 Date: 17.11.2011 LMV