Vayugundla Sudheer Kumar vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 31766/2023 and 973/2024 had failed to obtain structural stability certificates from JNTU University despite being granted sufficient time and opportunity. The Court noted the petitioners' submission regarding the high fees charged by JNTU but concluded that this indicated a lack of genuine interest in getting their buildings inspected and assessed. The Court emphasized its commitment to human life and safety, taking judicial notice of incidents involving the collapse of dilapidated structures. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the municipal authorities' actions. It left it open to the corporation to decide on the dilapidated condition of the buildings and, if found to be so, to take necessary steps in accordance with the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, potentially by obtaining a stability certificate from the concerned department. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.

Facts

These three writ petitions concern dilapidated buildings. In W.P.Nos. 31766/2023 and 973/2024, petitioners Kotha Venkata Subba Rao and Vayugundla Sudheer Kumar are challenging notices and endorsements from municipal authorities threatening demolition of their buildings. In W.P.No. 439/2024, petitioner Nanadigam Narasimha Rao seeks the demolition of these same neighboring buildings, claiming his own building, which he voluntarily demolished due to its dilapidated state, cannot be rebuilt until the adjacent structures are removed. The Court had previously directed petitioners in W.P.Nos. 31766/2023 and 973/2024 to obtain stability certificates from S.V. University, later from JNTU University, and restrained coercive action pending this. However, petitioners failed to obtain these certificates, citing high fees demanded by JNTU.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 31766/2023 and 973/2024 have sufficiently pursued obtaining structural stability certificates from JNTU University, as directed by the Court, to warrant further interim protection against demolition notices issued by the Municipal Corporation. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners in W.P.Nos. 31766/2023 and 973/2024 argued that they could not obtain the stability certificates from JNTU University because the authorities insisted on a payment of Rs. 35,000/- plus GST per building, which they found to be a substantial amount. They also argued that the petitioner in W.P.No. 439/2024 had voluntarily demolished his building and sought the demolition of the neighboring dilapidated buildings to proceed with his own construction. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents, represented by the GP for Municipal Administration Urban Development, did not explicitly record arguments regarding the petitioners' failure to obtain certificates. However, the Court's order implies a concern that the petitioners were not genuinely pursuing the certificates, as evidenced by their inaction despite being granted time and opportunity.