KURMINA VENKATARAMA REDDY Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment passed by the II. Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in A.S. No. 142/1976, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. District Munsiff Visakhapatnam, in O.S. No. 972/1973.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 972/73 on the file of the Prl. District Munsiff Visakhapatnam. He and the 2nd defendant purchased a house site measuring 368-?/3sq. yards situated in Visakhapatnam, within the Visakhapatnam Municipality together with a hut standing on it under a registered sale deed Ex. A-1, dt. 21-8-72 for a consideration of Rs. 3.000/- from Kusumanchi Appalaraju. As the shed was having a thatched roof at the time of the sale, it was subsequently changed by a tin roof. The plaintiff proposed to construct a building in the same site and hence he submitted requisite plans forthe approval of the 1st defendant Municipality. Taking the benefit given under section 214 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act of 1965, after waiting for more than three months, he laid the foundation in the said site with a view to build a house later on. The Muncipality issued a notice Ex. A-3, dated 3-10-1973, calling upon the plaintiff to demolish the foundation raised by him on the ground that he violated the building rules. On the receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff filed a suit on 30-11-1973 for permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from pulling down or removing the foundations, laid by him. The plaintiff also sought a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The learned District Munsiff granted temporary injunction. The plaintiff constructed the building during the pendency of the suit. After the completion of the building, the Municipality again issued a notice Ex. A-4 dated 31-3-1976 demanding tax for the building as assessed by the Municipal Authorities. The 1st defendant Municipality also filed prosecutions under Exs. A-5 and A-6. But the Magistrate dismissed the cases on the ground that they were filed beyond the prescribed period. Ultimately the learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved with the said decision of the learned District Munsiff, the plaintiff Preferred the appeal A.S. No. 142/1976. The learned II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Aggrieved with the decision of the learned District Judge, the plaintiff preferred this appeal.