J. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a recent article in April, 2014 issue of AIR on the occasion of centenary of All India Reporter, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and President Emeritus, Bar Association of India, Mr. Fali S. Nariman quoted in his article on 'Some aspects of Law and Justice that need mending' the following words of Lord Harry Woolf (Lord Chief Justice of England from 2000 to 2005):

(2.) JUBILEE Hills is a posh locality in the city of Hyderabad. Most of the plots on which buildings were constructed in that area were allotted by the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society, Hyderabad (for short, the Society) to its members. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 423, M.A. & U.D. Department, dated 31.07.1998, giving instructions for rationalisation of floor area ratio for the entire city, and made a special regulation for Banjara Hills and Jubilee Hills areas covered by Blocks -I and II. The said GO specifies the maximum floor area ratio for residential buildings at 1:1 and restricting to 10 meters the maximum height of the residential buildings. The maximum permissible area coverage of structure should be 50% if the plot area is between 500 square meters and 2000 square meters and if the plot area is above 2000 square meters, the maximum permissible coverage is 1000 square meters or 40% of the plot area whichever is higher. Though the Society in the past condoned violations, later on advised its members to conform their constructions to the Rules. The petitioner specifically alleges that municipal authorities have been condoning the illegal acts, even though the realtors extended their anarchy to the Jubilee Hills area. Challenging the constructions made by the respondents 5 to 11 and the inaction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), the present writ petition was filed specifically indicating the violations made by the said unofficial respondents. The affidavit also states that the Society filed appropriate complaints on 22.04.2004 and 14.05.2004 with the Assistant City Planner, Circle -V, bringing to his notice about the deviations and in spite of the same, the GHMC has not taken any action. The writ petition was dismissed against respondents 6 and 11 for default and respondent No. 12 was got impleaded.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 12 got impleaded and stated that he purchased an extent of 634 square yards out of 1150 square yards from the respondent No. 9 under a sale deed dated 20.07.2002. The original owner obtained permission for construction of a house for the total area and after purchase of a portion of the area from the original owner, respondent No. 12 proceeded with the construction and when GHMC took objection, he applied for regularisation and the same was regularised on 14.10.2009.