GADASALA KANAKA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the cancellation of building Permit Order dtd. 18/9/2019 vide B.A. File No.1086/1297/B/Z5/CDA/2016 without any notice and the consequential Stop Work Order dtd. 11/5/2020 vide Letter No.SWO/1086/2018/2506 and the Endorsement dtd. 11/5/2020 vide EDS/1086/2018/2909 passed by the Respondents returning the proposals for the building plan on sustainable grounds in the land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.154/3 situated in Chinagantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:- The property to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.154/3 was a zeroyiti patta situated at Gajuwaka Revenue Village, Visakhapatnam District, is claimed to be owned by the Petitioner. It is stated that a RCC roofed house was in existence prior to the year 1985 and the house tax was being paid to then Chinaganyada Gram Panchayat with Assessment No.240. After the merger of Chinaganyada Gram Panchayat in Gajuwaka Municipality, the house property tax being paid under the Assessment No.1088014299. While so, the Petitioner with an intent to construct old RCC structure had applied for building permission through online and the same was issued by the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation vide Permit No.1086/1297/B/Z5/CDA/2016, dtd. 5/7/2016 for the proposed construction of Stilt, Ground + 4 Upper Floors. Subsequently, the building plan of the Petitioner was returned vide Endorsement B.A.No.1086/1297/B/Z5/CDA/2016 as un-approved on the ground that the Petitioner did not pay 14% open space cost and that the land is not covered by the Land Regularization Scheme or Layout. The other reason for returning the building plan was that Electricity Tower lines are going through the site of the Petitioner.

(3.) It is further contended that the Petitioner submitted the explanation on 12/10/2016 stating that the 14% open space cost is not applicable since the RCC structure was on the land as on 1985 and that the property tax was being paid thereto. It was also stated that as per the clarifications issued by the Director of Town Planning on 16/5/2010 to the G.O.Ms.No.302, dtd. 15/4/2008 and G.O.Ms.No.569, dtd. 23/8/2008 stating that the building is in existence before 1985 with proof of property tax etc. need not to pay 14% open space cost. The Petitioner also enclosed a letter from the Superintending Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L dtd. 20/6/2017 giving NOC to the subject land in Sy.No.154/3 of Chinagantyada for building plan approval. On 14/11/2016, another endorsement was issued by the Respondent No.2 revoking the building plan unilaterally. The reason given for rectification of building plan was that as per the regularization of the layout LP.No.27/1991 in Sy.No.154/3, the land in question is cover in park and playground and 30 feet road was earmarked therein. The said reason given by the authorities was again explained by the Petitioner as incorrect vide representation. On going through the representation of the Petitioner, the GVMC and VUDA officials inspected the site and sought for a legal opinion from the Law Officer and also the Estate Officer of VUDA. A paper publication was also given on 4/2/2017 seeking for deletion of the open space from L.P.No.27/1991. As no objections were received, the Petitioner's land was deleted as open land as per the provisions of A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 vide Rc.No.1198/1991/G1/L2, dtd. 17/4/2017.