VISHNU MOR Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTRODUCTION: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the notices issued by the first respondent bearing Rc.No. 143/ 99-G3 dt. 9-02-1999 and 13-12-1999 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders of this Court. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction not to interfere with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Acs. 1.05 in S.No. 292/1, 292/3,292/4 and 294/7C. By the impugned notices the petitioner was requested by the first respondent to stop unauthorised construction immediately and obtain approval from the Shore Area Development Authority, the third respondent, (hereinafter called, SADA). BACKGROUND FACTS-PLEADINGS:

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of thewrit petition be noted as follows. Mother of the petitioner purchased the property in question in 1987 under five registered sale deed's. The property is situated outside the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits, approximately 25 Kms. away from Visakhapatnam city. It is abutting Visakhapatnam-Bheemili Beach Road. The mother of the petitioner so as to construct a residential building obtained building permission from Gram Panchayat of Kapuluppada, the seventh respondent herein on 20-01-1988. At that juncture the first respondent by public notice dated 3-04-1988 called objections from the aggrieved parties in connection with preparation of Draft Zone Development Plan of Rushikonda area under sub-sec. (2) of Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Urban Area Development Act, 1975 (for short, Development Act). The land falls within the area covered by Zonal Development Plan. The petitioner's mother submitted her objections on 23-04-1988. According to the petitioner even before any orders could be passed by the first respondent thereon, the competent authority, the second respondent herein, issued a show-cause notice dated 21-04-1988 under Sections 41 (1) and 42 (1) of the Development Act alleging that the petitioner made constructions without obtaining permission from the first respondent. The petitioner was also directed to stop construction. The petitioner submitted a representation informing that his mother already obtained permission from the seventh respondent. Therefore, by another communication dt. 7-06-1988 the petitioner was asked to submit building plans for approval by the first respondent. The petitioner, it is alleged, submitted building plans for approval. By proceedings Rc.No. 1847-A788/H:1 issued in July 1988 the first respondent refused permission for construction on the ground that residential building is not permissible in the zone reserved for Green Belt Area. In 1989 the petitioner's mother died and when the first respondent with the aid of police demolished the walls of the building, the petitioner made a representation on 15-6-1989 in vain.

(3.) The petitioner filed a writ petition,being W.P.No. 10194 of 1989 before this Court. By judgment dt. 17-4-1997 this Court disposed of the writ petition observing that the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat much prior to the notification of Zonal Development Plan earmarking the land for Green Belt, Area the same would prevail and the petitioner is entitled to go ahead with the construction in accordance with the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat. Again in 1999, the first respondent issued impugned orders in February and December. The petitioner submitted a representation whereupon he was asked to obtain approval from SADA in terms of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Rules issued vide notification dt. 19-02-1991 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, the powers of the SADA are delegated to the first respondent and therefore the first respondent ought to have approved the constructions made by the petitioner. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 23-02-2000 issued interim orders in W.P.M.P.No. 3769 of 2000 directing that status quo shall be maintained for a period of two weeks. The interim order was later extended until further orders on 22-03-2000. The first respondent filed an application, being W.V.M.P.No. 1789 of 2001. As the fifth respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, also filed counter-affidavit, the matter was heard finally when interlocutory applications are listed, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and is being disposed of.