IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21726 of 2007 Between: Amrutha Castle Flat Owners Welfare Association, rep. by its Secretary, S.P. Patnaik, R/o.D.No. 50-121-54, Balayya Sastry Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2.Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. 3.Lakshmi Priya Builders, Proprietary Concern Rep. by its Proprietor Chelikam Chiranjeevi Reddy S/o. Late Sidda Reddy, R/o. D.o. 50-95-4/11, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. 4.Penmasta Yasoda W/o. Subba Raju R/o.Plot No. A-20, D.No. 50-104-2, Sirdi Marg, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action against the illegal construction of the 3rd and 4th Respondents at S.No.2 of Resapuvanipalem, Balayya Sastry Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to take action against the illegal, construction of the 3rd & 4th Respondents, at S.No. 2 of Resapuvanipalem, Balayya Sastry Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.L.NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MS. PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by Amrutha Castle Flat Owners Welfare Association represented by its Secretary-S.P.Patnaik with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation-1st respondent in not taking any action against the illegal constructions of Lakshmi Priya Builders-3rd respondent and Penmasta Yasoda-4th respondent at S.No.2 of Resapuvanipalem, Balayya Sastry Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, unjust and consequently direct the Greater Visakhpatnam Municipal Corporation-1st respondent to take action against the illegal constructions of the respondents 3 and 4. 2. S.P.Patnaik has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated in the affidavit that 1st respondent-Corporation has accorded permission to the respondents 3 and 4 without verifying any documents. Based on the layout approvals, the respondents 3 and 4 are proceeding to construct the buildings in the said site. In a way, the contention of the petitioner-Association is that the respondents 3 and 4 are making illegal constructions over the site, which does not belong to them. For better appreciation, I may refer paras.4 and 5 of the writ affidavit and they are thus: “4. It is pertinent to submit that as aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd and 4th respondents, I along with some other residents of the locality made a representation to the 1st and 2nd respondents requesting them to take necessary action against the illegal construction of the non-official respondents. After making such representation the un-official respondents started harassing the petitioner by making phone calls and threatened with dire consequences. The un-official respondents are much influenced persons and as such they got approval of the building plan even though they do not have right or title on the land. Petitioner made a representation to the official respondents on 14.09.207 and 17.9.2007 requesting them to take action against the illegal construction of the 3rd and 4th respondents. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has verified the documents and stated that they have not regularized the site in S.No.2/25 of Resapuvanipalem, Balayya Sastry Layout and they have not assigned any plot number. It is further submitted that in spite of the clarification from the 2nd respondent, and in spite of the representation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent is not taking any action against the illegal construction of the 3rd and 4th respondents. It is submitted that being a statutory authority, 1st respondent has to act in accordance with law. It is further submitted that taking advantage of the inaction of the 1st respondent, the 3rd and 4th respondents are proceeding with their construction rapidly and as there is no option to the petitioner to put the 1st respondent in motion, the petitioner approaching this Hon’ble Court for indulgence of this Hon’ble Court and for necessary direction to the respondents in the interest of the petitioner and also in the interest of the public at large.” 3. Respondents entered appearance through their counsel and filed counter-affidavits. 4. One Mukesh Kumar Meena has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that building permission has been granted to the respondents 3 and 4 and the same is covered by approved lay out vide L.P.No.5 of 1980. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the site in which construction is being made is neither government nor municipal land. Para.5 of the counter-affidavit reads as hereunder: “5. Since the site in question is said to have been undisputed, according to the remarks offered by the Town Surveyor and VUDA, the first respondent granted permission in favour of the fourth respondent for construction of Ground + 2 upper floors for residential purpose vide proceedings in B.A.no.116876/05/ACP-II, dt.26.07.2007 subject to observance of certain conditions as laid down in the proceedings. Hence, it is absolutely false to allege that the site in question is park or open space or greenery. Since the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent is satisfying the G.O.Ms.No.423 MA, Dt.31.07.98 the plans as applied for have been granted by the first respondent vide B.A.No.11686/05/ACP-II, dt.26.07.2007. As such, the permission accorded by the first respondent is maintainable under law. Further the fourth respondent also commenced the construction in accordance with the approved plan and there is no column or setback deviation. The construction is at initial stage.” 5. 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit contending that the construction is made after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents 3 and 4 are proceeding with the constructions on a site, which does not belong to them and their constructions have no approval by the 1st respondent. 8. The counter-affidavits filed by the 1st and 3rd respondents indicate that the constructions have been made by the respondents 3 and 4 are after obtaining necessary permission from the first respondent and the site in question is a private land. The contention advanced by the petitioner that the site in which constructions are being made is a government site has not been substantiated by any material. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th June, 2008. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The Commissioner Special Officer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 2.The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. 3.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}