AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Narsipatnam Municipality.
The counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has been in settled possession and enjoyment of the property and has constructed a building according to the sanctioned plan. It is her contention that based on some complaint given by a third party an inspection was done behind back to the petitioner and that the impugned order was passed based upon the said inspection. She also points out that the impugned notice refers to L.P.No.12/1942-43. It is her contention that a layout plan approved in 1942-43 is sought to be relied upon for alleging that the petitioner has committed a violation. She points out that as per the approved building plan only the construction was carried out. She also raised an issue of the reference of Section 217(1)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act-1965 (in short "the Act") and states that it is not at all applicable to the facts alleged. Lastly, she submits that without giving notice etc., a direct order of removal of the alleged deviation has been passed in the impugned notice.
Sri Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent states that notice has been issued under section 228 and 189 of the Act and he points out that the Commissioner, under Section 228 of the Act, has the power to issue a provisional order to demolish the unauthorized construction. He fairly concedes that the impugned order is wrong in the sense that a show cause notice as mandated by Section 228 (2) of the Act has not been issued giving reasonable time to the petitioner to remove the so called unauthorized construction. Apart from that Sri Manohar Reddy also raises the issue of the extent of the site, which is covered by the building plan etc., vis-à-vis sale deed and argues there are deviations.
Lastly, he submits that since notice has been issued, to which a detailed reply has been given the same will be considered on merits by the 2nd respondent and an order will be passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner without prejudice to any of their rights agrees to this procedure.
Considering the submissions made, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider all the issues that are raised in the reply dated 02.11.2020 and to pass a speaking order on the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any inspections / survey of the site / building that are necessary should be carried out in the presence of the petitioner only. If the petitioner seeks permission for oral hearing the same should be given.
In addition, both the parties are permitted to rely upon the documents in their possession, provided they are served on the opposite side. Both the parties are directed to adhere to the time schedule fixed and to ensure that the entire exercise is completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the said exercise is completed and a speaking order is passed the 2nd respondent is directed not to take any coercive steps for demolition of building as described in the Writ Petition.
With the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
In the circumstances, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.