K JAWAHAR REDDY Vs. G KAMALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. R. P. No. 1056 of 2004 has been preferred by the respondent No. 1 in LA, no. 2511 of 1998 in I. A. No. 5107 of 1997 in o. S. No. 4610 of 1997 on the file of the ii Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 4610 of 1997. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad along with the suit the plaintiff filed I,a, no. 5107 of 1997 for temporary injunction. In the said application the plaintiff pleaded that they were constructing bona fidely on their land as per the sanctioned plan by leaving set backs etc. , and they were constructing the structure as per the provisions of the Rules and Regulations believing the said statement, the trial Court granted ad interim injunction against MCH on 25-11-1997. While granting interim injunction, the Court directed the petitioner to file photographs showing the stage of the existing construction by the next date and further directed that the petitioner shall not make any unauthorized construction against the sanctioned plan under the guise of the injunction order.

(2.) AFTER considering the affidavits filed by the petitioner and respondents and also the photographs filed by the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 the trial Court has modified its earlier interim injunction ordei and passed the following order:

(3.) IN I. A. No. 2511 of 1998 the petitioner-defendant No. 2 pleaded as follows: respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs have been accorded sanction by the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad for construction of only a part of ground floor, first floor and a part of second floor in the small area of 300 square yards admeasuring 45' x 60' with some conditions regarding set-backs and that the constructions shall be in accordance with the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and regulation Act, 1978. As per the sanctioned plan, the respondents shall keep five feet space on northern and southern sides open to sky; on the western side 10 feet space and on rear side 10 feet space open to sky shall be left as per the Rules and Regulations of the Municipality. Respondents 1 and 2 have started construction activity in violation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner raised objection and got issued legal notice, but they continued their unauthorized construction with impunity. When the municipal Corporation contemplated to demolish the unauthorized structure, respondents filed the suit and obtained temporary injunction restraining the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad from pulling down and removing the construction made in the suit schedule premises. Despite the orders of the Court, respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding with the illegal and unauthorized construction deliberately in total defiance of the Court orders. Respondents 1 and 2 have created unruly scenes and attacked the representatives of the petitioner when they were taking photographs for filing in the court. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Vacation Civil Judge inspected the premises on 5-6-1998 and noticed that the structure for ground and four floors are under the construction and tiles and flooring slabs are lying on the ground and are being cut to sizes for fixing them to the floor. Pillars have been raised and brick walls between the pillar points also have been laid. The Commissioner also observed that no space open to the sky has been left around the building. The respondents left 11 1/2 inches against 5 feet on the northern side, 13 1/2 inches against 5 feet on southern side, four feet and 5 1/2 inches against 10 feet on eastern side and 8 inches against 10 feet on western side, from the compound walls of the neighbours. The Respondents also prevented the Advocate Commissioner for carrying out the inspection work and the commissioner was compelled to take Police assistance for inspecting the building. Respondents 1 and 2 have disobeyed and continuously disobeying injunction orders of the Court intentionally and deliberately. They have no respect to the Court and the action of respondents 1 and 2 constitute gross contempt, therefore requested the Court to punish respondents 1 and 2 as indicated above.