Omprakash v. Laxminarayan And Ors.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. These two Writ Petitions have been filed apprehending demolition of the buildings constructed by the petitioners, over Plot Nos. 9 and 3 in Survey Nos. 195 and 196 of Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by respondent No. 1. I have heard Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 in both the cases.

2. The petitioners pleaded that they obtained building permissions for Ground + three upper floors, but, however, constructed one additional floor; and that in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No. 901, issued by the State Government, they have made applications, for regularisations of the layouts and unauthorised constructions, to respondent No. 3; and that the same are pending. The petitioners further pleaded that on 17.04.2013, respondent No. 1 has issued notices stating that the petitioners have raised Ground + five floors and that they shall produce proof of the permissions granted by the competent authorities. In reply thereto, the petitioners have informed through their letters, dated 23.04.2013, that for regularising the additional floors constructed by them, they have approached respondent No. 3 by way of applications for regularisation of the layouts and the unauthorised constructions; that recently, the officials of HMDA have inspected the premises and instructed the petitioners to remit the balance amounts in addition to the amounts already paid by them at the time of making applications for regularisation of the buildings under Building Penalisation Scheme; and that accordingly, they have drawn Demand Drafts for the amounts payable for regularisation and produced the same before respondent No. 3. At this stage, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions.

3. Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1, submitted that the petitioners have, admittedly, raised constructions in violation of the sanctioned plans and that respondent No. 1 is not aware as to whether the petitioners' applications for regularisation are still pending before respondent No. 3 or not.

4. In this Court's opinion, the activity of construction of buildings in brazen violation of the sanctioned plans is seriously affecting the concept of planned development. Such constructions are not only patently unlawful, but they also frustrate the concept of planned development besides violating the human rights of the society at large. Such illegal and unauthorised constructions have to be put down with heavy hand. But, unfortunately, the Government itself is coming out with regularisation Schemes by prescribing rates for condoning the violations. These illegitimate structures deny proper ventilation and light to the neighbours, congestion and scarcity of amenities such as water even to the inmates of the buildings occupying portions constructed according to the sanctioned plans. The successive Governments, instead of alleviating the miseries of the victims of these unlawful structures, are in a way encouraging such constructions by coming out with regularization schemes from time to time. Encouraged by this regressive policy of the Government, the unscrupulous elements, whose only aim is to make the maximum out of their investments, are violating the building laws with impunity, reducing the laws regulating building activity to a mockery. It is time that the State should rethink about its policies in this regard, lest a strong message is being sent to the society that any one can violate law and get away by paying a price. In a democracy governed by Rule of Law, such tendencies spell doom to orderly governance.

5. Pro tempore, as the petitioners' claim that in pursuance of the above-mentioned CO., they have applied for regularisations of the layouts as well as the unauthorised constructions to respondent No. 3, respondent No. 1 shall ascertain from respondent No. 3 as to whether the petitioners' applications for regularisations are pending or not. If the applications are not pending or they have been rejected, respondent No. 1 is entitled to demolish the structures which are constructed by the petitioners in violation of the sanctioned plans. Conversely, if the applications of the petitioners are pending, respondent No. 1 shall refrain from taking any action till disposal of such applications by respondent No. 3. Further, if such applications are pending, respondent No. 3 is directed to consider and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till this exercise is completed, the petitioners shall not carry out further constructions.

6. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMPs, if any, pending are disposed of as infructuous.

--------------