T.V.Hanumanth Rao v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Its

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12944 of 2012 ORDER:

This Writ Petition was filed with allegation that the building which the first petitioner owns and the second petitioner is a lessee is situated in door No.27-16-173, Beseant Road, Vijayawada, admeasuring 210 square yards and is in a bylane joining the Eluru road and Bandar road. The first petitioner constructed the building after obtaining permission from VGTM UDA as Vijayawada was a municipality in 1983. As per the said sanctioned plan, the basement was earmarked for utilizing for shops and other commercial purposes and no part of the area was earmarked for parking. It is the case of the petitioners that the buildings which were constructed prior to 1987 consist of basement + ground + upper floors only.

The first petitioner leased out the building to Sumangal Cloth Stores which was doing business since 1984 and vacated the same in 2006. Thereafter, the second petitioner came to occupy the same on lease. While so, when the first respondent issued a notice on 18.11.2011 asking the petitioners and other building owners to attend a meeting on 19.11.2011 with respect to the conversion of parking places for commercial purpose and utilizing cellar portions other than parking, they attended the meeting. In the meeting, the first respondent informed them to remove all the shops which are in cellar portion and contrary to the Government Orders.

same and no decision was ultimately taken. However, the second respondent issued a notice under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act), directing the first petitioner to remove the construction in the basement. The petitioners state that in respect of some of the neighbours, their buildings were regularized when they converted the basement portion for shopping purposes. The first petitioner states that even if he removes the shop, it cannot be utilised for parking, as it is a very small space and the vehicles cannot enter and go out of the same. The petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.31020 of 2011 challenging the notice dated 18.11.2011 and the same was disposed of on 24.11.

2011 giving liberty to the petitioners to submit their explanation and the respondents were directed to consider the same. It was further observed that the building shall not be demolished pending such consideration. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their explanation on 28.11.2011 by enclosing all the documents relating to the permissions issued and in spite of the same, when an endorsement was passed on 12.04.2012, the present Writ Petition was filed.

This Court, by order dated 27.04.2012, directed both the parties to maintain status quo. No application for vacating the said order is filed. However, the copy of the counter affidavit discloses that the sanctioned plan approved by the VGTMUDA dated 23.01.1984 shows that the basement is meant for

parking. The building plan was sanctioned with parking in the basement level and the three other floors for commercial purpose. However, in violation of the sanctioned building plan, the petitioners constructed shop rooms and gave them for lease for carrying on the business activity. In view of the increased traffic in Vijayawada city, the District Road Safety Committee held a meeting on 03.11.2011 and decided to clear the cellars and the basement floors meant for parking purposes in order to ease the traffic congestion. Though the petitioners submitted a reply on 28.11.2011 pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 24.11.2011 in W.P.No.31020 of 2011, the petitioners did not produce any documents showing the permission for making construction in the parking area, except relying on the regularization orders issued in favour of the neighbours. The counter affidavit further states that the sanctioned plan issued shows that the basement portion is earmarked for parking and conversion of the same is not permissible.

The facts in the case make it clear that the petitioners obtained the sanctioned building plan for construction of building from VGTM UDA on 23.01.1984 with basement floor meant for parking, ground floor + mezzanine + first floor meant for commercial purpose. But, contrary to the said sanctioned plan, the parking area was converted to shop rooms and was let out to the lessees including the second petitioner. The impugned endorsement dated 12.04.2012 shows that the explanation submitted by the petitioners dated 28.11.2011 was

considered and after consideration of the same, it was categorically held that the Government Orders do not permit utilization of cellar portion meant for parking for other than parking purposes. The petitioners were asked to vacate the cellar business within seven days failing which the Municipal Corporation would take necessary action for vacating the same without further instructions. In the facts of the case such endorsement cannot be held to be illegal. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders under Section 636 of the Act.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 01.11.2016 vs