THE ROLE OF ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER (TOWN PLANNING)
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 11 February 2011
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
I filed a contempt case against the ACP (TP) and the Zonal Commissoner of GHMC for not acting on the orders of the Honourable High Court of AP for stopping further construction of an unauthorized constructon being made in the common area of our apartment.
The ACP (TP) who has also represented the Zonal Commissioner, in his counter affadavit filed in reply to the conempt case before the Honourable High Court of AP sateted that the open balony where the illegal construction is carried is only by the party who has been constructing the structure and nobody in the apartment including the peitioner is using the same.
My question is, how can the ACP (TP) tell who is using which part of the common area in the flats? Even if one does not use a particuar portion of the common area, do the other residents loose their right to it?
He also stated after reciving the complaint from some of the residents it issued a notice under section 452 of HMC act,1955 to the party on 9-2-2010 for stopping the iternal construction work i.e., closing of open balcony even prior to the orders ofthe Honurable High Court of AP on 5th March 2010 and stopped the construction.
The party applied for regulariastion of the construction made by them on 4th March 2010 wich was rejected by the Corporation.
The ACP (TP) has mislead the Honourable High Court by stating that they have stopped constrution after issuing the party a notice 0n 9-2-2010.
I have been continously reminding them that the construction is still being carried out vide letters addressed to the ACP (TP), Deputy Commissioner and the Zonal commissioner, but they ignored them, but in the counter affadavit stated that they have stopped the construction.
Should these discrepancy in the counter affadavit brought to the notice of the High Court?
He also stated that as the regularisation was rejected the Corporation shall take immedaiate steps for demolition of the unauthorised structure. This was on 5th July 2010 and it is not done so far as the pary has taken a status quo from 3rd Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts.
The status quo has not been vacated yet.
