NERELLA DHANUNJAYA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of house bearing Door No.15/288 (new No.15-4-325) situated at S.V.N.Road, Warangal. He became owner of the said house by reason of partition decree passed by the Court of the District Judge, Warangal in O.S.No.190/1 of 1951. The house is a tiled house. With a view to change the roof from country tiles to that of RCC (reinforced concrete construction), he applied for permission to the first respondent for construction of ground floor. At the relevant time, Warangal town was a selection grade municipality. As no orders were passed either granting or rejecting permission, he allegedly waited for 120 days and commenced construction. The Municipality issued provisional order of demolition on the ground that he did not obtain permission. He submitted explanation. But the Municipality passed orders on 6-5-1993 ordering demolition for violation of Rule 9(2)(i)(a) of the Building Rules contained in Schedule III of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 ('the Act'). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.S.No.360 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Munsif, Warangal seeking a declaration that the order dated 6-5-1993 is null and void and without jurisdiction. The petitioner alleged that without considering his explanation the first respondent passed the order dated 6-5-1993. He also obtained ad interim injunction. Still the suit is pending. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 42 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 to show cause as to why action for demolition of the house constructed by the petitioner should not be taken. The petitioner again filed a suit being O.S.No.279 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for permanent injunction restraining Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA) from interfering with his possession. The application for interim injunction being I.A.No.1776 of 1995 was rejected by the trial Judge whereupon the petitioner filed an appeal being C.M.A.No.14 of 1995 and obtained ad interim injunction pending the appeal. Both the suits are pending.

(2.) In the meanwhile, master plan was sanctioned for Warangal municipal corporation. As per the master plan, S.V.N.Road was proposed to be widened to 50 feet. Having regard to Section 17 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, the petitioner issued a notice to the Government of Andhra Pradesh calling upon them to acquire the land forming part of house No.15/288 (New No.15-4-325). But the Government did not take any action to acquire the land and, therefore, it cannot be compulsorily acquired for road widening.

(3.) The petitioner applied for permission for construction of first floor and made application on 1-1-1997. The petitioner alleges that in spite of approaching the Commissioner to know about the planning fees and development charges, the first respondent did not mention the amount. He also alleged that he issued a registered letter dated 29-1-1997 requesting to inform about the amount payable by him, in vain. Be that as it is, the respondent issued a memo rejecting the application for permission on 31-1-1997. This rejection notice is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.