THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.21218 of 2010 and 13569 of 2011 Date:23.08.2011 WRIT PETITION Nos.21218 of 2010 Between: Dr.B.Shasikala ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Korutla Municipality, Korutla and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Ramesh Kumar For Sri Chetluri Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mrs. Shanthi Neelam Standing Counsel for Municipalities Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri K.Venumadha Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: None appeared AND WRIT PETITION Nos.13569 of 2011 Between: Bandi Praveen ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Korutla Municipality, Korutla. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Ramesh Kumar For Sri Chetluri Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mrs. Shanthi Neelam Standing Counsel for Municipalities Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri K.Venu Madhav The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Writ Petitions are filed in respect of the same subject matter and hence, they were heard and being disposed of together. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.21218 of 2010 is the mother of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.13569 of 2011. For convenience, they are referred to as ‘the mother’ and ‘the son’. The property of Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.No.1372 of Korutla Village and Mandal, Jagityal Revenue Division, Karimnagar District, belongs to the family of the petitioners. Respondent No.1 has issued a notice under Section 228(1) and a provisional order under Section 228(2) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), calling upon the husband of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21218 of 2010 to stop construction over the land adjacent to Maddula cheruvu. He was also called upon to show cause why the provisional order shall not be confirmed. Assailing the said order, the mother has filed Writ Petition No.21218 of 2010 by stating that her husband died and as such, the said notice and provisional order are illegal. A few months thereafter, the son filed Writ Petition No.13569 of 2011 on the plea that after the filing of Writ Petition No.21218 of 2010 by his mother, the land was transferred in his favour and that, in pursuance thereto, he has made an application on 11.10.2010 to the respondent-Municipality for building permission, which was allegedly kept pending. By invoking the deemed provision under the Act, the son has pleaded that with the non-disposal of his application within the prescribed time, he is deemed to have building permission and that the respondents cannot interfere with his construction activity. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by Korutla Municipality in both the Writ Petitions. In the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.21218 of 2010, it is inter alia stated that without obtaining permission, the owner of the above mentioned land was found levelling the land, digging trenches for construction of pillars and dumped concrete for construction and therefore, the Municipality had to per force issue notice under Section 228(1) of the Act and provisional order under Section 228 (2) of the Act. It is also stated that there is a threat to cause damage to Maddula cheruvu, which is situated adjacent to the petitioner’s site. In the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.13569 of 2011, it is inter alia stated that after filing Writ Petition No.21218 of 2010, the mother, with a view to avoid compliance with the interim order of this Court in the said writ petition to the effect that the petitioner shall not proceed with the further construction, transferred the property in favour of her son by way of a registered gift deed and that, on 14.10.2010, the respondent-Municipality has issued a notice to the son, wherein it is stated that he has not submitted the LRS proposals and copy of conversion permission. Accordingly, the Municipality has called upon him to comply with the said deficiencies. It is further stated that the said notice was served on the mother as the son was not available and that suppressing the said fact, the son has filed Writ Petition No.13569 of 2011 by raising the plea of deemed permission. The son filed a reply-affidavit in Writ Petition No.13569 of 2011, wherein it is inter alia stated that his enquiries with his mother revealed that she was forcibly served with the notice, dated 14.10.2010, which was not brought to his notice by his mother and that, he is ready and willing to submit the layout regularization certificate and also obtained conversion permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagityal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities representing the official respondents and Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents. The facts noted above would show that the mother has started preparations for raising construction without obtaining building permission from the respondent- Municipality. Therefore, a notice and a provisional order were issued under Sections 228(1) and 228(2) of the Act, respectively. Having filed Writ Petition No.21218 of 2010 and obtained an interim order to the effect that the Municipality shall not interfere with the construction already raised by her and she shall not proceed with any further construction until further orders, the mother has transferred the property in favour of the son. Admittedly, the Municipality has served notice, dated 14.10.2010, addressed to the son, on the mother calling upon him to produce the layout regularization certificate and also the conversion permission. The son has filed Writ Petition No.13569 of 2011 without disclosing this material fact by raising the plea of deemed permission and secured an interim order from this Court. The stand taken by the son in the reply-affidavit that the notice was forcibly served on his mother and that she did not bring the same to his notice is evidently an after thought. The mother and the son being doctors, it is not possible for this Court to believe that the fact of service of notice on the mother could not have been disclosed by her to her son. In my opinion, the petitioners have failed to approach this Court with clean hands. It is stated that on the strength of the interim orders of this Court, they have raised the structure without building permission. The petitioners completely lack bona fides and hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction in their favour for granting any relief. On the premises as above, both these Writ Petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- each, payable to the Korutla Municipality, Korutla, Karimnagar District. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petitions, order, dated 25.08.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.26996 of 2010 and interim order, dated 30.04.2011, in W.P.No.13569 of 2011 are vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.26996 of 2010 and 16443 of 2011 are dismissed as infructuous. ______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd August, 2011 DR