GUNTUPALLIJANAKIRAM Vs. MRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring 201 square yards in Sy.No. 36/10-A of Butchirajupalem village within the limits of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation pursuant to the registered agreement of sale dated 22-04-1999. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner made an application under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') on 31-03-1999 to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 01-04-1999 informed the petitioner that the competent authority does not propose to exercise the right of the first option to purchase the land. The petitioner also made an application to the 2nd respondent for permission to construct a building and obtained the same on 25-06-1999. When the petitioner started foundation work, the 1st and 3rd respondents interfered with the same. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent not to interfere with the proposed construction to be made by the petitioner as per the sanctioned plan.

(3.) The respondent No. 3 filed a counter stating that the petitioner is a G.P.A-cum-sale agreement holder for the land measuring 201 square yards in Sy.No. 36/10-A of Butchirajupalem village of Visakhapatnam District, which was executed by Sargadam Mahalaxminaidu, s/o Satyanarayana. Mahalaxminaidu purchased the said land from Sadi Atchanna, s/o late Appanna. Originally, Sadi Atchanna filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the Act and the competent authority finalized the same by issuing draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act on 08-12-1977. As the original owner, Atchanna has not filed any objectionst the competent authority issued final statement under Section 9 of the Act on 26-07-1978 confirming the declarant as surplus land holder of 0.0343 square metres in Sy.No. 36/10-B of Butchirajupalem village. After following necessary formalities, the surplus land was taken over by the authorities and allotted to the Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam (2nd respondent) on 16-03-1992. The petitioner, who purchased the land in Sy.No. 36/10-A, occupied the surplus land in Sy.No. 36/10-B and commenced the construction of building on the land which was already handed over to the 2nd respondent on 16-03-1992 as per Government Order G.O.Ms.No.1156 Revenue UC.I Department, dated 20-02-1991. Therefore, the 1st respondent has rightly stopped the construction. It is stated that the petitioner fraudulently obtained permission from the 2nd respondent by suppressing the facts. It is not in dispute that under Section 37 of the Municipalities Act, 1965 if the vacant land belongs to Government situated in the Municipality, which is in possession and control of the Council, the Council shall not construct or permit the construction of any building or other structure on any such vacant land, use or permit the use of such vacant land for any permanent purpose unless the prior permission of the Government is obtained by the Council therefore, after furnishing such information as the Government may require, including the usefulness of the land or any housing scheme. Before granting permission to the petitioner the 2nd respondent, though the land was in its possession, has not obtained prior permission of the Government.