PITHALLA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dtd. 29/1/2022, which were issued by the respondent no. 2, calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction in the area meant for parking. It is alleged in the impugned notice that the petitioners are in the process of undertaking unauthorised construction and that they have constructed rooms in an extent of 122.88 square meters on the stilt floor.

(2.) Sri.P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that, the petitioner, along with others, had proposed construct a residential complex and a total of 80 flats in two blocks. The relevant application was submitted to Mangalgiri Municipality for permission. It is also submitted that, at that time, the Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, and Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority existed. The said Authority issued a sanction on 12/2/2013, providing the technical sanction. The Mangalagiri Municipality, by an order dtd. 20/3/2013, granted permission for the construction of a stilt floor for parking, plus a ground floor, plus four upper floors.

(3.) It is also submitted that while the permission for construction was sanctioned. A condition stipulating a mortgage of 10% of the constructed area to the municipality was to be created to ensure that the construction is in accordance with the sanction plan. The petitioner accordingly executed a mortgage deed on 26/2/2013.