HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9468 & 11019 of 2004 Date : 18.08.2009 Between : Dr.Ram Avatar Sharma & another. …..Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by its H.M.A. Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9468 & 11019 of 2004 COMMON ORDER : As facts are common and parties are also same in these two writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.No.9468 of 2004, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 3rd respondent-Corporation in not regularising the kutcha constructions made in and around Block No.43, Flat No.1 of Bahadurpura A.P. Housing Board Colony, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. In W.P.No.11019 of 2004, the petitioners seek a declaration by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in not sanctioning permission to construct the compound wall around Flat Nos.1 and 4 of Block No.43 at Bahadurpura A.P.Housing Board Colony, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 4. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, a Statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Housing Board Act, has constructed low income group houses at Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. As per the scheme, in each block, four flats are constructed, two on the ground floor and two on the first floor. The flats were sold and the petitioners are the purchasers of Flat Nos.1 and 4 in Block No.43. Respondent No.4 is also one of the purchasers of the flats in the same block, and he has purchased Flat No.3 on the first floor. In the writ petition in W.P.No.9468 of 2004, it is the grievance of the petitioners that to safeguard the electric motor, which is fitted to the borewell etc., and also to have a shed for scooter parking, they have made some kutcha constructions, and inspite of their representation, the said constructions are not being regularised. It is alleged that respondent No.4 has also made some constructions on the upper portions of the building, and inspite of the same, no action has been taken on such constructions, but respondents 1 to 3 are taking steps for demolition of the kutcha constructions made by them. 5. In the writ petition in W.P.No.11019 of 2004, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondents in not granting permission for construction of compound wall around Flat Nos.1 and 4 of Block No.43. 6. The Assistant City Planner, Circle 2 of the 3rd respondent-Corporation has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Corporation. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners have already constructed the compound wall around Flat Nos.1 and 4 of Block no.43 without obtaining permission from the Corporation and when a representation was made on 27.07.2004 for regularisation of such constructions, a reply was given by the respondents on 19th of August 2004, stating that the application for regularisation of compound wall would be considered subject to filing of 'no objection certificate' from the A.P. Housing Board, since the colony was developed by the Housing Board. 7. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions, suppressing certain facts. When it is brought to their notice that some illegal constructions are made by constructing compound wall and other structures, two suits are filed in O.S.Nos.1914 and 3458 of 1997, seeking mandatory injunction for demolition of the compound wall and structures therein, constructed by the petitioners, and both the said suits are decreed on 18th of December 2000, by the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is further stated that though the petitioners carried the matters in First Appeals by filing A.S.Nos.78 and 116 of 2001, same are also ended in dismissal, as such, the decrees obtained by respondent No.4 in the Civil Court, have become final. It is further submitted that even on merits, as much as the issue has become final, and as the Housing Board continues to be the owner of such land, the petitioners are not entitled either to make any constructions or to seek regularisation of the constructions already made by them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. In this case, it is to be noted that the petitioners are one of the purchasers of the flats in the complex constructed by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. As per the scheme of the Housing Board Act, the land which is in and around the complex is a common area left for the common usage of the owners/occupants of flats. As much as it is the common area for all the flats, the petitioners cannot construct any compound wall or any kutcha constructions. In any event, it is to be noted that though the petitioners are seeking the reliefs of regularisation, and grant of permission with regard to the unauthorized constructions, in respect of which, they have suffered the decrees for mandatory injunction in the suits filed by the 4th respondent, the said fact is not even disclosed by them in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the decrees, dated 18.12.2000, granted by the Civil Court, directions were issued for removal of the compound wall and other kutcha constructions made by the petitioners illegally, in the common areas. Though the petitioners have suffered such decrees, and also, having lost the First Appeals filed by them, without even disclosing such material fact, they seek directions for grant of permission and also regularisation of the unauthorized constructions. Even otherwise, except stating that respondent No.4 has also made some illegal constructions and inspite of that no action has been taken on such constructions, there is no basis for the petitioners to seek directions for regularisation of the constructions made by them. 10. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the structures, which are sought to be regularized are constructed subsequent to filing of the suits before the Civil Court, and the same are not the subject matter of the said suits, but from a perusal of the decrees, which are filed in the material papers filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it is clear that in the said suits, directions were issued for removal of the compound wall and also the kutcha constructions, in respect of which, regularisation orders are sought for in these two writ petitions. In that view of the matter, by merely stating that the structures in question are subsequently raised and the same are not subject matter of the suits, the petitioners ought not to have approached this Court by way of these two writ petitions, seeking discretionary reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by suppressing such material facts. In view of suppression of relevant facts, and also, as there is no basis for the claim made by the petitioners in these writ petitions, they are not entitled for any relief, either for permission for construction of compound wall, or to seek regulaisation of the Kutcha constructions alleged to have been made by them in the common area, which is to be enjoyed by all the flat owners/occupants. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, these two writ petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that if any constructions are already confirmed to be the unauthorized constructions, it is open to the respondent-authorities to remove the same by following the procedure contemplated under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the Rules made thereunder. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th August 2009 ajr