THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.853 of 2009 Date: 01.02.2010 Between : Smt. Velagapudi Vijaya Lakshmi … Petitioner and Garimella Manikanta, s/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Flat No.G3 & G2, Anjani Towers, Near Magna Super Market, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural & Mandal, Krishna District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.853 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24.04.2009, rendered by our learned brother Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy in W.P.No.6874 of 2009. 2. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the appellant before us. The writ petitioner and her brother own two flats bearing Nos.G2 and G3 in an apartment complex, known as Anjani Towers, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. The 3rd respondent- appellant is the owner of flat bearing No.G1. There are five flats constructed in this complex per floor. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner and her brother sought to erect an iron grill in the common corridor, to provide an additional security for their two flats bearing Nos.G2 and G3. That was objected to by the appellant herein. He lodged a complaint with the local Gram Panchayat at Gollapalli seeking removal of the grill erected by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and her brother. When the local Gram Panchayat put the writ petitioner and her brother on notice on 9.1.2009 calling upon them for removal of the grill, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned single Judge has concluded the entire issue observing as under: “The impugned notice was issued to the petitioner, on a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent. In the material papers, the petitioner filed a sketch of the entire multistoried complex. The petitioner owns flat in G-2 and her brother owns flat in G-3. The 3rd respondent is said to be the owner of Flat No.G-1. A perusal of the plan discloses that the corridor or open space between Flat Nos.G-2 and G-3 is for the exclusive benefit of owners of those two flats. Obviously, to provide security to their flats, the petitioner and her brother put a grill. The access of the other flat owners is in no way harmed. There must be free flow of air to the corridor in between flat Nos.2 and 3. Necessary directions can be issued to the petitioner, in this regard. However, insistence on removal of the grill, cannot be countenanced. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned notice is set aside. It is, however, directed that the petitioner or her brother shall not construct any wall enclosing the corridor and only grill shall be continued, ensuring free flow of light and air across the enclosed corridor.” 4. Sri K.Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the learned single Judge has inaccurately considered the common corridor constructed in the complex in ground floor as if a portion of it is meant for the exclusive benefit of the writ petitioner and her brother and, on that premise, proceeded to issue directions which he has issued and, in fact, all the flat owners, being the co-owners, have equal right and access to the common facilities provided for in the apartment complex and no owner of any flat can claim exclusive right of ownership or usage and, therefore, the learned single Judge has committed an error in permitting the writ petitioner and her brother to erect a steel grill in the space that is available in the corridor attached to flat Nos.G2 and G3. 5. We have also been taken through the approved building plan of the complex. At page-30 of the paper book in this writ appeal, from the typical floor diagram, we understand that there are five flats in ground floor of this complex and all the five flats are constructed as independent units having no common wall. Between every two flats, there was open space to sky maintained and a corridor is running through from east to west. Flat Nos.G2 and G3 are towards the eastern end of the corridor, while flat Nos.1 and 5 are towards western end of the same corridor. Since there is a small space that was available in this common corridor, so as to provide an additional security, the writ petitioner and her brother have sought to erect a steel grill there, which is sought to be objected to by the writ appellant, who is the owner of flat No.G1. 6. When we have perused the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge has taken adequate care to protect the interests of all the co-owners by making it clear that the writ petitioner and her brother shall not convert the steel grill into any permanent structure and that the writ petitioner and her brother shall not also prevent free flow of light and air on to the corridor. Therefore, by constructing a steel grill, which is purely a security measure, the interests of the co-owners are not put to any prejudice or jeopardy. 7. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA _____________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 01.02.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.853 of 2009 01.02.2010 (Msr)