Date of Filing: 17.06.2013
Date of Disposal:06.05.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday, the 06th day of May, 2014
E.A.No.15/2013 IN C.C.No.169/2011
Between:
Smt.M.P.Naga Lakshmi,
W/o P.C.Sekhar,
D.No.21-105,Post Office Road,
Old Town,
Anantapur. … Petitioner/D.Hr
Vs.
Anantapur Municipal Corporation,
Rep. by its Commissioner,
Anantapur. … Respondent/J.Dr.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the Petitioner/D.Hr and Sri M.Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/J.Dr. and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This E.A. is filed by the petitioner/D.Hr against the respondent/J.Dr. for sanction of approval of building plan as per the directions of the District Consumer Forum in C.C.No.169/2011. As the respondent/J.Dr. failed to sanction the approval of building plan to the complainant.
2. Explanation filed by the respondent/J.Dr. stating that the District Consumer Forum issued orders in C.C.No.169/2011 dt.20.02.2013 directing the respondent/J.Dr. to grant permission to the complainant within one month from the date of its order. The counsel for respondent/J.Dr. submitted that the Anantapur Municipal Corporation is the Urban Local Body (ULB) constituted under the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act,1994 and all the functions and responsibilities of the Municipal Corporation are subject to statutory acts and G.O.s that are stipulated by the constitutional authorities. Further the counsel for the respondent/J.Dr. submitted that the sanction of permission to the complainant is also one such responsibility of the respondent/J.Dr. represented by the commissioner. The counsel for the respondent/J.Dr. submitted that as per the Municipal Corporation Act,1994 all the provisions of GHMC Act,1955 are applicable to Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation also and according to section 428 to 443 of the GHMC Act, 1955, the A.P.Building Rules,2012 of G.O.M.S.No.168, MAUD, dt.07.04.2012, the revised Master Plan sanctioned to Ananthapuramu vide G.O.M.S.No.733 MA, dt.25.08.2008 and other relevant acts and G.Os. the permission to construct any building in the area of Ananthapuramu shall be given by the commissioner.
3. The counsel for respondent/J.Dr. submitted that the petitioner/D.Hr. approached the commissioner by filing her application to construct a residence in her site to an extent 202.75 square meters in T.S.No.191-5 at Bindelavari Colony, Ananthapuramu. The building application was then scrutinized as per G.O. M.S.No.302, MA, Dt.15.04.2008, but now A.P. building Rules, 2012 of G.O.M.S.No.168 MAUD dt07.04.2012 are applicable to process the building application. After careful examination and scrutiny of the application of the complainant it was observed that the site measurements as 12.8 x15.85 meters and it has 20 feet wide road on its northern side and land in survey No.192/2 on its southern side and 10 cents land belonging to Sri Pujari Chandra Sekhar and land of Sri Pujari Lakshmi Narayana on its western side. The counsel for respondent/J.Dr. submitted that the above site does not belong to a layout sanctioned by the Town Planning Authorities. It belongs to an unauthorized layout. Hence the complainant has to pay betterment charges and 14% open space contribution charges are applicable as per the section 388 of GHMC Act, 1955 and layout rules, 1965.
4. The counsel for respondent/J.Dr. submitted that according to the revised Master Plan of Ananthapuramu sanctioned vide G.O.M.S.No.733 MA, Dt.25.08.2008, the T.S.No.191-5 falls in industrial land use hence, the said site falls under industrial area. The petitioner/D.Hr. has made an application to construct a house building contrary to the industrial land use as per master plan. The counsel for respondent/J.Dr. further submitted that the applicant may apply for change of industrial land use to residential land use. The application for change of land use has to be made to DT & CP, A.P. Hyderabad and if the permission is granted by the State Government to change the land use from industrial land use to residential land use, then the applicant has to remit the necessary fee for change of land use to the Municipal Corporation and obtain permission from the commissioner. Further the counsel for respondent/J.Dr. submitted that the proposed construction of residence in the site area of 202.75 square meters with abutting road width of below 12 meters and height of building below 7 meters shall have the setbacks of 2 meters front setback on road side 1 meter setbacks on remaining other 3 sides as per table three of the rule 5(b) of the A.P. Building Rules, 2012. The approach road as referred in the registration document is 20 feet wide road and as per rules it should be 30 feet width hence there is a shortfall of 10 feet or 3 meters. The shortfall of road width comes to 1.5 meters which shall be taken from the complainant’s front setback along with 2 meters front setback. However no parking is required as it is a residential building. Further the counsel for respondent/J.Dr. submitted that an endorsement was also made to the application on 18.03.2013 stating that the applicant has to produce the change of land use and pay the required fees in order to take necessary action and as the rules has been changed the applicant shall abide to the prevailing rules of the A.P.Building Rules, 2012 and submit the revised plans giving the road widening portion. If no compliance to the rules as laid in the GHMC Act,1955, the A.P.Building Rules,2012, the master plan and the other relevant rules for payment of fees is found, the permission to build the residence may be cancelled or revoked at any time. Further the counsel for respondent/J.Dr. filed a memo along with the District Gazette and as per the District Gazette the betterment charges of Rs.125/- per square meter is to be paid by the applicant and the applicant also should pay 2% of building permit fee to make an application and pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is nonrefundable fee, if the applicant fails to pay the balance of licence fee and building approval fee. The counsel for the respondent/J.Dr. submitted that as the applicant has not paid the necessary fee the respondent/J.Dr. is not liable to sanction the building approval plan as claimed by the petitioner/D.Hr.
5. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents submitted by both sides. The applicant’s site falls under industrial area and as per the document filed by the respondent/J.Dr. the petitioner should make an application for change of land use and pay the necessary fee in order to convert the same in to residential land use and after that the petitioner has to pay the building application fee, development charges, material encroachment charges betterment charges and 14% open space contribution charges and 1% building cess and others in order to get the building plan approved as per the A.P.Building Rules 2012. 2% of building licence fee subject to a maximum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid as initial fee in order to process the application. The remaining fees may however be paid before the issue of permission.
6. In the above circumstances as per the arguments of petitioner/D.Hr. it is seen from the documents filed by both sides an endorsement was sent by the respondent/J.Dr. dt.18.03.2013 informing the petitioner that the sanction of building permission can be given only subject to the fulfillment of following conditions stating that:
1. The site under reference falls in industrial land use hence the applicant shall apply for change of land use from industrial to residential land use.
2. All the remaining fees i.e. betterment charges and 14% open space contribution charges shall be paid.
And as the applicant has failed to fulfill the above conditions the application was returned on 13.10.2011 by suggesting to submit the same after fulfilling the part in order to take necessary action. Considering the arguments of both sides it is evident that the applicant has not paid any amount after the receipt of the said endorsement as the applicant has not paid the necessary fee as per the endorsement dt.18.03.2013 the respondent/J.Dr. has not conceded the order of the District Forum, Ananthapuramu.
7. In the above circumstances we are of the view that as the applicant has not paid any fee as per endorsement dt.18.03.2013 the respondent/J.Dr. has not sanctioned approval for construction of the building. Hence the applicant is hereby directed to pay the necessary fee to the respondent/J.Dr for sanction of approval of building plan.
8. In the result the petitioner/D.Hr. is directed to pay the necessary fee as per endorsement of respondent/J.Dr.dt.18.03.2013 and the respondent/J.Dr is directed to sanction the building plan approval after receiving the necessary fee within one month from the date of payment of necessary fee.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 06th day of May, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
-NIL -
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAP
