K VIVEK REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment handed down by my learned Brother, Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar, originates from a painstaking exercise. He has highlighted detailed facts arising out of the pleadings, as also the impact of the relevant statutes/rules/ regulations. Undoubtedly a highly appreciable endeavour and I am in total agreement with the judgment in so far as it upholds the validity of Rule 7.1 (xiv) of the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006, relating to the reduction of requirements and standards of the setback and change of use of the land but I could not persuade myself to fall in line with some of the conclusions, not because of tall thinking to present an innovative or a novel idea but to ensure real and substantial justice between the parties.

(2.) ANOTHER conclusion, I am in agreement with my learned Brother, is referable to the challenge thrown by medium of W.P. Nos.1259 of 2010 and 1677 of 2010, to G.O.Ms. No.539 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department dated 27.7.2007, permitting the change of use of land to the extent of 500 square meters in the premises bearing number D.No.2-2- 20/K/9 in Durga Bai Deshmukh Colony for residential purposes. The challenge has been turned down by my learned Brother and concurring therewith, I am tempted to make a little addition to the reasoning, in view of the importance of the issue. Before proceeding in that direction, reference to the stand of the respondents depicting that in and around the colony several educational institutions having already come up, there remains no justification for construction of new schools in the colony which is well visualized by the residents of the colony, assumes relevance. The factual narration need not detain me because relevant issue is, whether power to change the land use is available and with whom. In this behalf reference to sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act becomes imperative which reads:

(3.) FROM Commissioner and Special Officer, GHMC, Hyderabad Lr.No.0492/CSC/TP-9/CZ/09 dated 2.9.2009. The attention of the Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited. He is requested to comply with the provisions of 7.1 (xiv) of Revision Common Building Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.86 M.A. andUD(M1) Department dated 3.3.2006 for narrow plots in which the setbacks on sides may be compensated in front and rear setbacks so as to ensure that the overall aggregate setbacks are maintained in the site, subject to maintaining a minimum of 1 m. on each side, for according permission in this case." 5. Memo reproduced above is questioned on the ground that it has originated from the recommendation of a Member of the Parliament and the Minister who had indisputably recommended the disposal of the representation but such recommendation will not ipso facto debase the presumption of correctness of the Government memo, for, it has been issued in regular course of official business and presumption of correctness has to remain intact unless it is shown to be actuated by favoritism, oblique motive, or to have emanated from improper or irrelevant considerations and opinion to that effect cannot be formed on mere assertions but on adequate material which is wanting, therefore, such challenge to the memo is not sustainable.