GURRAPU ABRAHAM SUDHAKAR Vs. KODALI VIJAYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders dated 04.09.2015 passed in I.A. Nos.853 and 854 of 2015 in O.S. Nos.1868 and 1869 of 2014 respectively by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

(2.) O.S. No.1868 of 2014 and 1869 of 2014 are maintained by the two plaintiffs against the sole defendant i.e., Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada for the relief of declaration of notice dated 23.12.2014 vide R.C. No.G1-119689/2004 issued by the defendant municipality as illegal, unauthorized and ultra virus and consequently for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant municipality and its men from demolishing any of the portions of the suit schedule premises and to grant costs and such other reliefs.

(3.) The description of the suit schedule shows in both suits is R.C.C. roofed two storied building along with A.C sheet roof on the terrace constructed in the land in the extent of 242 Sq.yds and other suit concerned in an extent of 193.6 Sq.yds in R.S. No.113/4 bearing D.No.58-5-13 and 58-4-13 old Assessment Nos.35316 and 35316/1 and New Assessment No.274285 and 275928 respectively situated at Patamata, Vijayawada VMC, Vijayawada, Krishna District within the boundaries described in both the plaint schedules. Pending both the suits, there were temporary injunction orders in force against the defendant municipality and while under contest, the petitioner by name Kodali Vijaya Kumar as one of the purchasers of the part of the respective plaint schedule property sought for impleadment in the suit saying that there is a possibility of collusion between the defendant municipality and the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs managed to get order for demolition in seeking to regularize the unauthorized construction apart from deviation for the ground floor, part of the 1st floor and total violation of the other floors which are constructed without even any application or permission but for separate permissions, as if two applications of the petitioners in so far as ground and 1st floor concerned and the petitioner claims that he purchased a portion of the first floor of the building and at best, there are only deviations insofar as ground and first floor concerned purchased by him and two others, who are internally related to the said two plaintiffs in the suits. So far as 2nd and 3rd floor, which are totally unauthorized constructions without seeking any permission.