AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The Petitioner is a private limited company which purchased property bearing No. 20-4-62/J to M at Punch Mohalla, Hyderabad. The Third Respondent owned a plot of 20 x 24 feet in premises bearing No. 20-4-87 and 88, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. The Petitioner owns property on three sides of the Third Respondent's property. When the road in the locality was widened, nearly 20 feet in depth was affected. The Third Respondent was 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 whose properties were affected by road widening, providing relaxation on certain aspects. The Third Respondent applied to the Municipal Corporation, the Second Respondent, for permission to construct on the leftover strip. The Second Respondent forwarded the application to the First Respondent for grant of certain relaxations. The First Respondent issued proceedings dated 28.02.2007 permitting the Second Respondent to relax certain requirements. The Petitioner challenged the same, contending that the Government cannot under any circumstances relax the requirement as to front setback and that, if the setback rule in the locality were implemented, the Third Respondent would not be entitled to make any construction at all; reliance was placed on the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006. In her counter-affidavit, the Third Respondent stated that out of 69.45 square yards owned by her, 48.88 square yards were taken over by the Municipal Corporation; that it is a commercial area; and that she applied for permission to construct upon 20.56 square yards with dimensions of 8.5 x 22 feet. She alleged that the Petitioner harassed her in every form by instituting various proceedings with the sole object of driving her away from the locality. Procedurally, W.P. No. 2085 of 2006 was initially filed and 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 Third Respondent from making any construction. Since the impugned permission was accorded, both writ petitions were closed. The Petitioner also filed O.S. No. 8373 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Third Respondent, and it is said to have been dismissed. Counsel were heard, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
The legal questions were whether the Government can relax the requirement as to front setback under the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006; whether the proceedings dated 28.02.2007 permitting the Second Respondent to relax certain requirements, and the consequent permission to the Third Respondent to construct on the leftover strip after road widening, are valid; and whether the power of relaxation can be exercised in the circumstances of the case.
Acts & Articles
The judgment relies on the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006 (referred to as the Rules). No section or constitutional article is cited by number in the judgment.
Judgments Referred
Not discussed in this judgment.
Obiter Dicta
The court observed that the very purpose of providing setbacks, particularly for commercial buildings, is to ensure that provision is made for widening of the road in the future; that it is not uncommon for owners of properties facing the road to suffer serious hardship on account of road widening; and that the schemes evolved by the Government and the Corporation permit relaxation, with an incentive so wide that an affected owner who does not intend to construct at that place may transfer such rights and construct at a different place. The court also observed that the Petitioner's intention appeared to be that if the Third Respondent were disabled from making construction, the frontage of the Petitioner's property would increase, and that the Petitioner, a private limited company, harassed the Third Respondent at every stage. The Third Respondent was described as an old woman who had struggled for almost half a decade to construct shops and make a living from rents.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of a front setback under the Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006 does not prevent the Government from exercising its power of relaxation where the circumstances warrant it. Where road widening has already taken place and the owner has lost almost two-thirds of the property, leaving only a small strip, the case presents a typical situation in which the power of relaxation must be used; applying the Rules so as to prevent any construction on the remaining land would lead to a situation worse than acquisition, since the owner would neither be able to use the property nor receive compensation. The relaxation granted to permit construction on the leftover strip was therefore justified.
Final Ruling
The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The challenge to the proceedings dated 28.02.2007, by which the First Respondent permitted the Second Respondent to relax certain requirements for the Third Respondent's proposed construction, fails, and the permission for the Third Respondent to construct on the leftover strip remains undisturbed. The Petitioner's earlier writ petitions were already closed and the suit is said to have been dismissed.
Plain-Language Gist
The Third Respondent lost most of her plot when the road was widened and was left with a small strip. She obtained permission to build shops on that strip after the Government relaxed building rules, and the Petitioner company, which owned neighbouring property, challenged that permission. The High Court dismissed the challenge, holding that the relaxation was justified because otherwise she could neither use the land nor get compensation.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—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. 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. 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.