Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 297 (AP)

Nimrah Estate v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2011-03-31

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
Judgment The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and it purchased property, bearing No.20-4-62/J to M at Punch Mohalla, Hyderabad. The 3rd respondent is the owner of a plot of 20 x 24 feet, in premises bearing No.20-4-87 and 88, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. The petitioner owns property in three sides of the property of the 3rd respondent. The road in the locality was widened, in which nearly 20 feet in depth, was affected. The 3rd respondent is left with a strip of 20 x 8 feet (according to the petitioner 20 x 5 feet). The Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad evolved schemes for the benefit of owners of the properties that are affected in the widening of the road. Relaxation on certain aspects is provided for. The 3rd respondent submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation, the 2nd respondent, seeking permission to construct, in the left over strip of the land. The 2nd respondent forwarded the application to the 1st respondent, for grant of certain relaxations. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 28.02.2007, permitting the 2nd respondent to relax certain requirements. The petitioner challenges the same. According to them, under no circumstances, the Government can relax the requirement as to front setback and if the rule as to setback in the locality was to be implemented, the 3rd respondent was not entitled to make any construction at all. Reliance is placed upon the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006 (for short ‘the Rules’). The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. She contends that out of an area of 69.45 square yards owned by her, 48.88 square was taken over by the Municipal Corporation and since it is a commercial area, she submitted an application seeking permission to construct upon 20.56 square yards with dimensions of 8.5 x 22 feet. It is stated that the petitioner harassed her in every form by instituting various proceedings with the sole object of driving her away from the locality. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration; Sri R.Radhakrishna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was left over with less than one third of a plot owned by her, after the road was widened. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration; Sri R.Radhakrishna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was left over with less than one third of a plot owned by her, after the road was widened. It is not uncommon that the owners of the properties facing the road, are put to serious hardship, on account of widening of the road. To mitigate their hardship, the Government and the Corporation have evolved schemes for according permission by relaxing certain rules. The incentive is to such an extent that even if the owner of the affected property does not intend to make construction at that place, under the relaxed norms, he is permitted to transfer such rights and thereby the construction can be made at a different place also. The property of the petitioner was also affected along with that of the 3rd respondent. The intention of the petitioner appears to be that in case the 3rd respondent disabled from making construction, the frontage of their property would increase. Obviously for that reason, it went on opposing the grant of permission to the 3rd respondent. Initially, W.P.No.2085 of 2006 was filed and it was disposed of directing that respondents 1 and 2 shall take into account, the objection raised by the petitioner. Another W.P.No.10037 of 2007 was filed to prevent the 3rd respondent from making any construction. Since the impugned permission was accorded, both the writ petitions were closed. In addition to that, the petitioner filed O.S.No.8373 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the 3rd respondent, and it is said to have been dismissed. It is no doubt true that according to the Rules, a setback must be left on the front side, by a person, who proposes to make construction. The very purpose of providing setbacks, particularly for commercial buildings is to ensure that a provision is made for widening of the road in the future. In the instant case, the widening has already taken place. Secondly, the petitioner does not dispute that the Government is vested with the power to relax the rules, wherever the circumstances warrant. The case of the 3rd respondent presents a typical situation, where the power of relaxation must be used. In the instant case, the widening has already taken place. Secondly, the petitioner does not dispute that the Government is vested with the power to relax the rules, wherever the circumstances warrant. The case of the 3rd respondent presents a typical situation, where the power of relaxation must be used. It is on account of the widening of the road, that she lost almost 2/3rd of the property. If the rest of the property cannot be put to use due to application of the Rules, it would lead to a situation that would be worse than acquisition. The reason is that had the property been acquired, she would have got compensation and on account of refusal of permission, she can neither put the property to use, nor would get any compensation. The 3rd respondent is an old woman and she was struggling a lot for the past almost half a decade to construct shops and make a living with the rents thereof. The petitioner, which happens to be a private limited company, harassed her at every stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.