HUDA Judgement
Important Judgement
JUDGMENT UPHOLDING THE MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING REGULATIONS, 1981, HUDA
ZONING REGULATIONS, 1981 & MCH BUILDING BYELAWS, 1981
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Thursday, the twenty fourth day of February, One thousand nine hundred and eighty
three
PRESENT:
The Honourble Mr. K. Madhava Reddy Acting Chief Justice
a n d
The Honourable Mrs. Justice Amareswari
WRIT PETITION NO. 8238 & 8286 OF 1981
(for C.T. vide separate sheet attached)
W.P.No. 8238/81:
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction declaring the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Building Bye-Laws 1981 published in the Rules Supplement Part-II extraordinary of the A.P. Gazette dated 10-8-81 in G.O.Ms.No. 905, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development areas, as illegal, invalid and ultravires under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the writ be allowed with costs.
W.P.No. 8286/81:- (Vide separate C.T. attached)
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the (i) Multi storeyed Building Regulations and (ii) Zoning Regulations Statement No.11, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 13th August, 1981 in G.O.Ms.No. 917, are illegal, invalid in operative and Ultra-vires under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 and the Constitution of India and the Writ Petition be allowed with costs.
For the Petitioners: M/s. M.N.Phadki, P. BabuluReddy, Advocates.
in both the petitioners
For the 1st Respondent The Advocate General and
in both the Petitioners: The Government Pleader for Panchayatraj.
For the 2nd Respondent The Advocate General.
In W.P.No. 8238/81:
For the 3rd Respondent Mr. P.M. Gopal Rao, Standing Counsel for Huda.
In W.P.No. 8286/81:
The Court delivered the following:
(WRIT PETITION NOS. 8238 AND 8286 OF 1981)
Judgement:
(Judgement of the Bench delivered by
AMARESWARI, J.)
___________________________
Between:
1. M/s.Natraj Construction Company,
represented by its Partner, Shri Shankerlal, Agarwal.
2. M/s.Amrit Apartments, represented by its partner
Shri Arun Gala.
3. M/s.Jeevandas & Bros, per partner Shri Krishna Das.
4. M/s.Land Mark Builders, per partner, Shri Irfan Hussain.
5. M/s.Srinivas Constructions per partner Shri Raghunada Rao.
6. M/s.Laxmi Builders, per partner Shri Jitendernath.
7. M/s.Dhananjaya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Per partner
Shri Jitendernath.
8. M/s.Shanti Constructions per partner
Sri Satish Sanghi.
9. M/s.Modi Builders per partner Sri Satish Modi.
10. M/s.Fasions Builders per partner Sri Ram Moorjani.
11. M/s.Meridian Constructions per Managing Partner
Shri Shivcharan.
12. M/s.Srinath Constructions per partner
Shri Shivcharan.
13. M/s.La’builde Corporation represented by
Sri Yagnesh Sachdev.
14. M/s.Satguru Builders, Sri Vijay Kumar (partner).
15. M/s.Victoria Commercial Complex represented by
Sri S. Lalit Kumar Gupta.
16. M/s.Saradars Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Per its
Director Sri K.L.N. Reddy.
17. M/s.Rock Hills Constructions per partner
Shri Chandra Prakash Tibrewala.
18. M/s.Badruka Land Development & Construction Co.
Per Manager Sri Srikishan Badruka. ...... Petitioners.
A n d
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its
Secretary, Housing, Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, a local public
Statutory body represented by its Special Officer,
Having its head office at Tank bund Road, Hyderabad. …. Respondents.
The Petitioners are 18 in number. They are common in both the Writ Petitions. They challenge the validity of the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations issued in G.O.Ms.No. 916 dated 11-8-1981 and published on 13-8-1981 and the Multi-storeyed Building Regulations, 1981 issued in G.O.Ms.No. 917 dated 11-8-1981 and published on 13-8-1981. The also assail the validity of the Building bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued in G.O.Ms.No. 905 dated 7-8-1981 and published on 10-8-1981. The Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this Judgement.
The petitioners are builders and constructors of multi-storeyed complexes in various places in the Municipal limits of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Construction of buildings and laying of roads within the Municipal limits was always regulated by Rules and bye-laws made by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Chapter XII of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 deal with the Building Regulations. The bye-laws are framed in exercise of the power under this Chapter. Chapter XIII deals with Planning and Development.
It cannot be gain said that in the recent past population in the urban areas had increased beyond all proportions. The urban development and town planning had not measured upto the standard and slums have developed hap hazardously. With the result that even people living in the cities were not having the required amenities. There was a long-felt need for setting up of development authorities for metropolitan cities and other large towns to supervise the various activities connected with housing, etc., and for looking after the planning and development. It is for this purpose, the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 for short, the Urban Act, was enacted by the State Legislature. It came into force on 27.1.1975. It is pattened on the Delhi Development Act of 1957 and the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 of England. It is a legislation enacted for the development of Urban areas according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto.
So far as it is relevant for our purpose, “Urban Area” is defined as including the area comprised within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The word “development” is defined in Section 2 Clause (e) as meaning (I) the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a master plan for Zonal development plan referred to in this Act, and (ii) the carrying out of building, engineering, mining orother operations in, on, over or under land, or (iii) the making of any material change in any building or land and includes re-development. The word “building” is defined in Section 2 Clause © as including a house, out-house etc. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Act, the State Government had constituted the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for the Hyderabad Urban area with effect from 2.10.1975. Several powers are conferred on this body to be exercised for the purpose of securing the development of the urban area. Section 6 of of the Act directs that the HUDA shall prepare a master plan for the development area concerned. Section 7 directs that along with the plan, the authority shall also prepared a zonal development plan for each of the zones. Section 13(1) empowers the State Government to declare certain urban areas as development areas for the purpose of the Act. Section 13(4) directs that no development of land within the development area shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the HUDA. Section 13(5) says that no development shall be undertaken or carried out within the development area after coming into operation of any of the plans nless such development is also in accordance with such plans. Under Section 1491) persons desiring to obtain permission to develop any area shall make an application to the HUDA containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Regulations. Section 13(3) envisages that the aforementioned application has to be considered by the authority in the light of the matters specified in Section 7 Clause (2) sub-clause (d) of the Act. Section 59 vests the HUDA to make regulations with the previous approval of the Government to carryout the purpose of the Act. Section 59(1) deals with the general power. Section 59 Clause (1) sub-clauses (a) to (1) enumerate the specific matters in regard to which regulations can be made. Section 59(1) (f) relates to the form in which an application for permission under Section 13 and 14 shall be made and the particulars to be furnished in such application. Section 59(1) (1) mentions that any other matters which may be determined by the Regulations. In exercise of the power under Section 59 the HUDA framed the Zoning Regulations and the Multi-storeyed Building Regulations.
The main contention of the petitioners is that the regulations are ultravires of Section 59(1) of the Act. The HUDA has no power to regulate construction of buildings. The purpose of the Act is to develop lands and the expression "development” used in the Urban Act means only the general development and use of the land. The Act is not concerned with construction of individual buildings and granting of permissions for individual buildings. They say that the purpose of the Act is to develop the land and is therefore limited to preparation of plans and approving the layouts. The learned Counsel referred to the definition clauses in Section 2 and the objects and powers of the authority mentioned in Section 5 of the Act and contended that the definition of the word “development” occurring in Section 2(e) must be understood as referring to development of land generally and as having no relationship to the individual uses to which a piece of land or building may be put to. They say that the Act is concerned only with the drawing of the master plan and other plans and does not take in any individual use. In support of this contention, reference was made to Sections 6 and 7 which deal with the preparation of master plans and the zonal devlopment plans. As a limb of this argument, they pointed out that while Chapter XIII of the Municipal Corporation Act which deal with the development of the land is repealed, Chapter XII which concerns building regulations, is not repealed. The retention of the Chapter “building regulations” in the Municipal Corporations Act indicates the intention of the Urban Act to control only the use of the land and not individual constructions, argues the Counsel.
>On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. P.M. Gopala Rao, appearing for the Authority that the expression “development” cannot be given a restricted meaning and having regard to the purpose of the Act as transparent from the relevant provisions, it must be held to include construction of buildings in accordance with the plans.
The Zoning Regulations and the Multi-storeyed Buildings Regulations are framed by the Authority in exercise of its power under Section 59 of the Urban Act. Section 59(1) is as follows:-
“59(1): The Authority may, with the previous approval of the Government, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made the render, to carry out the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to the generality of this power, such regulations may provide for –
XX XX XX XX XX
(f) the form in which any application for permission under Section 13 and 14 shall be made and the particulars to be furnished in such application:
(g) the terms and conditions subject to which user of lands and buldings in contravention of plansmay be continued:
(h) the manner of communicating the ground of refusal or permission for development.
XX XX XX XX XX
Section 59 makes it clear that Regulations can be made only to carry out the purpose of the Act consistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The preamble says that the Act is enacted for development of urban areas according to plan and matters ancillary thereto. The expression “development” is defined under Section 2 Clause (e) as to mean the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a master plan or zonal development plan referred to in the Act and the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes re-development. Section 2 Clause (d) defines “Building operations” and it says that building operations” include re-building operations, structural alterations of, or additions to buildings and other operations normally undertaken in connection with the construction of buildings. The expression “building” is defined under Section 2 Clause © as follows:-
“2©: “building” includes, -
(i) a house, out-house, stable, latrine, godown, shed, hut,
wall (other than a boundary wall) and any other structure
whether of masonry, bricks, mud, wood, metal or any
other material whatsoever”.
The language employed in every one of these definitions is of wide import. It includes all buildings, buildings in general and buildings in particular. There is nothing in these expressions to show that the purpose of the Act is not to cover any construction of individual buildings. The words “making of any material change in any building” occurring in Clause (e) of Section 2 which defines “development” are significant. Even a change in any building is defined as development. A reading of the definitions of building operations, building, development, together make it abundantly clear that development means and includes construction of individual buildings and covers even a change in a building. Then we have Section 13 which deals with the method and manner in which the land can be developed. Section 13(4) says that no development of land within the development area as notified by the Government under Section 13(1) can be done except in accordance with the permission granted by the HUDA. Section 13(5) says that, no development shall be carried out unless such development is also in accordance with the master plan and the zonal development plans after such plans are prepared as required under Section 6 and 7. Thus while Section 13(4) declares that the development must be in accordance with the permission granted by the authority, Section 13(5) says that it must also be in accordance with the master plan and the zonal development plan. Before the plans are drawn the development must be in accordance with the permission and after the plans and down it must be in accordance with the plans also. Thus both before and after the preparation of the plans the development can only be in accordance with the permission granted. If the argument of the petitioners is to be accepted, there will be no scope for the operation of Section 13(4). Further, the words “also in accordance with such plans” accurring in Section 13(5) would be rendered oties. Section 13(4) and Section 13(5) together indicate that the Act is concerned not only with the general development of the land and preparation of master plan and the zonal plans, but also with individual buildings. It refers to permission being obtained both before and after the plans are drawn. Section 14(1) directs that application to obtain permission referred to in Section 13 must be in the form prescribed by the Regulations. Section 14(3) says that after conducting enquiry into any matter specified in Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 the authority may gtrant or refuse to grant permission. Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 says that the zonal plan must provide in particular for erection of buildings on any site and the restrictions in regard to open spaces to be maintained in or around buildings. Section 14(5) says that if no order is passed within ninety days permission shall be deemed to be granted. All these provisions make it clear that the Urban Act is concerned not only with the general development of land, but also with individual constructions. It is true that Section 61 repeals only Chapter XIII of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act which is styled as “development of land” and does not repeal Chapter XII dealing with “building regulations”. But from this it cannot be spelt out that the purpose of the act is limited to the drawing of plans alone. Since the Act exhaustively provides for all matters enumerated in Chapter XIII of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, Chapter XIII is repealed expressly. Section 61(b) says that any Rules or Regulation of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, Chapter XIII is repealed expressly. Section 61(b) says that any Rules or Regulation of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act shall have no effect. All that is means is that while Chapter XIII of the Municipal Corporations Acts stands repealed so far as Development area is concerned, Chapter XII is repealed only to the extent of inconsistency. The building regulations or bye-laws made under Munmicipal Corporations Act co-exist with the regulations framed under this Act except to the extent of inconsistency and where they are inconsistent, the Regulations framed under the Urban Act prevail. There is nothing in Section 61 of the Urban Act to suggest that the Act does not cover use of the land with reference to individual buildings. We therefore, hold that the Zoning Regulations and the Multi-storeyed Building Regulations of 1981 are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Urban Act or the Rules made thereunder. We are also unable to hold that the said regulations do not carry out the purpose of the Act or cover matters which are extraneous to the Act. The Regulations are therefore intra-vires.
It is next submitted that the Regulations affect the rights of parties and as such there is an implied duty to give a hearing before making them. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel Sri M.N. Phadke relied upon SHRI BHAGWAN Vs. RAM CHAND (1) and STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BINAPANI DEI (2).
Section 59 of the Act confers power on the HUDA to make regulations. The Section requires that the regulations must be made with the previous approval of the Government and they should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. As long as
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A.I.R. 1965, Supreme Court, 1767.
(2) A.I.R. 1967, Supreme Court, 1269.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domain Name
these conditions are satisfied the regulations cannot be held to be bad in law. There is no implied duty to hear the parties in such matters. For instances, in the case of Rules to be framed by the Government Section 58 requires that the Rules should be placed before the house of the Legislature as soon as they are made and similarly it is said that regulations must be framed with the prior approval of the Government. The framing of regulations is in the nature of a legislative power. It is not a quasi-judicial function. Hence the principles of natural justice have no application at all. (Vide J. KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA (3). The two decisions cited by Sri M.N. Phadke have no bearing on the question. SHRI BHAGWAN Vs. RAM CHAND (1) is a case in which the question was ehether in exercising the powers under Section 3(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the authorities have to follow the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, it was held that a hearing was necessary and that such a duty can be interfered by implication though it was not an express requirement of the Section. We fail to see how this case can render any assistance to the petitioners. Similarly, in BINAPANI’s case (STATE OF ORISSA Vs. VINAPANI DEI (2) it was held that even administrative orders which involve civil consequences have to be passed consistently with rules of natural justice. It is a case where an order was passed on a disputed date of birth without giving a hearing to the party and it was ruled by the Supreme Court that a hearing was necessary.
Reliance was placed upon BAGALKOT CITY MUNICIPALITY Vs. BAGALKOT CEMENT CO. (4) in which the bye-laws framed under the Bombay District Municipalities Act were struck down on the ground that they were not published. Section 48(2) of the Bombay Municipalities Act require that the bye-laws should be published for information of the persons likely to be affected thereby by publishing a draft of the proposed bye-laws and there are provisions in the said Act enabling persons to make objections and suggestions regarding the proposed bye-laws. The bye-laws were held to be invalid, as there was a violation of statutory provision. This case is easily distinguishable as Section 59 of the Urban Act does not require pre-publication of the draft regulations. We, therefore, hold that the impugned regulations do not suffer from any legal infirmity. N fact in Para 18 of the counter, it is stated that before framing the regulations discussions were held with the President of the Architect Association and representatives of various interests.
As a limb of the same argument, it is submitted that the regulations are in the nature of bye-laws and hence prior publication inviting objections is imperative. We are unable to agree. The regulations cannot be equated to bye-laws. As observed supra the provi-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A.I.R. 1965, Supreme Court, 1967.
(1982) 2 S.C.C. 116.
sions of Section 59(1) under which the regulations are framedsupra the provisions of Section 59(1) under which the regulations are framed are amply complied with and prior approval of the Government was obtained as required.
It is next submitted that the Regulations are unreasonable and hence liable to be struck down. This submission has no force. It is a settled principle of law that no regulation can be held to be invalid except on the ground of inconsistency with any provision of a statute or rule or ultravires the Act, or infringes the fundamental rights of a citizen. Reasonableness of the Regulations cannot be the subject matter of judicial determination as they are framed in exercise of legislative power.
The petitioners challenge the validity of Regulations 9, 10 and 11 on the ground that they constitute unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on trade. Regulation 9 relates to open spaces around and inside the building. Regulation 10 deals with floor area ratio and coverage and Regulation 11 deals with parking places. It is submitted that there are no sub-clauses (I), (ii) and (iii) in Regulation 9.2.1 and the reference to them is meaningless. In the counter affidavit it is stated that No. (ii) was missing before the words “rear open space” and No. (iv) before the words “the open space” and that it was a print mistake. This appears to be correct as Clause (iv) of Regulation 9.2.1 says “the open spaces mentioned in 9.2.1(i), 9.2.1(ii) and 9.2.19iii) shall be for buildings of height of 10 metres”. The regulations were correctly printed later and the copy placed before us shows sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). The print mistake is immaterial. It is then said that the restrictions regarding projections in Regulation 9.2.3 are unreasonable restrictions. But we find that even the old Municipal bye-laws contain these restrictions on projections into the open space. The old bye-law 26(2) of the Municipal Corporation, projection of balcony into open space was limited upto one meter and in the present regulation it is limited to 0.9 meters width upto 50% of the length of the open space. It is only very minimal changes that are brought about by these regulations. The floor area coverage mentioned in Regulation 10 is not unreasonable. The said restriction is imposed in certain areas depending upon the density of the population. We find that such restrictions were there even earlier. None of the fundamental rights of the petitioners are affected by these regulations.
It is submitted that Regulation 5 of the Multi-storeyed Building Regulations operates as an unreasonable restriction on the enjoyment and use of the property and Regulation 5(6) prescribing a fee of Rs.25,000/- to be paid as a Fire Precaution Fund
is arbitrary and is not commensurate with the services rendered by the Fire Precaution Authorities. It is not in the nature of a fee and hence ultra-vires of the Act. Regulation 5 (1) of the Multi-storeyed Building Regulations is as follows:-
“5. Approval of Director of Fire Services, fees and cess prior Clearance of
Director of Fire Services of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – (1) All the Building
plans showing the necessary fire protection and fire fighting requirements
as per these regulations shall be submitted to the Director of Fire Services,
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for their clearance before the Building Plans
are approved by the local body”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A.I.R. 1967, Supreme Court, 1269.
(4) A.I.R. 1963, Supreme Court, 771.
All that this Regulation says is that the building plan must show that sufficient provision is made for fire protection and fire fighting requirement as prescribed by these regulations and that the plan must be approved by the Director of Fire Services. In case of fire accidents, there must be enough space for fire engines to operate. It is therefore felt that the plans should be scrutinised and approved by a technical person as Director of Fire Services. It is a regulation which is conceived in the general interest of the public and we see nothing objectionable as to operate as an unreasonable restriction. But however, the fee prescribed under Clause (6) of Regulation 5 has no proportion to the services rendered. Regulation 5(6) is as follows:-
5”(6). At the time of application to the Director of Fire Services for
approval under these regulations the Builder/owner shall pay an
amount calculated at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.m. of sanctioned
built-up areas of each building subject to a minimum of Rs.25,000/-
to the Fire Precaution Fund as per prescribed procedure. The entire
amount shall be refundable without any interest in case the building
proposal is subsequently dropped”.
Regulation 5 is captioned as “Approval of Director of Fire Services, fees and cess prior clearance of Director of Fire Services of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad”. What is contemplated under this Regulation is the fee to be deposited for scrutiny and approval of the plans by the Director of Fire Servicdes. The fees must be commensurate with the services rendered. At this juncture the services rendered by the Director of Fire Services is only to scrutinise the application to see whether adequate provision is made to meet any emergency in case of fire accidents as prescribed by the Regulation in this regard. The averment in the counter affidavit that the fire services of the State requires special equipment like long ladders, ropes and powerful engines to control fire and other accidents and for maintenance of such equipment funds are necessary is untenable. The special equipment like ladders, ropes and powerful engines are to be maintained by the State as a part of its administrative activity and there is a special Act dealing with fire safety services prescribing a particular procedure. The amount of Rs.5/- per square meter of the sanctioned built-up area subject to a minimum of Rs.25,000/- is highly arbitrary and disproportionate to the services rendered by the fire service department at this stage. In this connection we may refer to Section 58 the rule making power of the Government. Clause (h) of Section 58 says that rules can be made prescribing the fee to be paid on an application for permission under Section 14 and the factors and circumstances to be taken into consideration in determining such fee. Any regulation can only be in consonance with the rule making power of the Government and the rules contemplate only a fee to be prescribed for an application for permission. We therefore hold that Clause (6) of Regulation 5 prescribing a fee of Rs.5/- per square meter of sanctioned built-up area subject to a minimum of Rs.25,000/- of the Multi-storeyed Building Regulations as unconstitutional.
The petitioners next challenged Regulation 9 prescribing the maximum plot coverage and floor area ratio, Regulation 10 dealing with open spaces around the building as unreasonable. Regulation 10(I) deals with the open space to be left between the multi-storeyed block of the building and the outerline of the plot and Regulation 10(ii) deals with the minimum space to be left between multi-storeyed buildings situated in the same plot. A minimum distance has to be ensured between the two blocks in the same plot to secure proper ventilation and provision for movement by fire fighting services in case of need. A comment is also made about Regulation (10(1)(d) prescribing provision of open spaces in addition to parking spaces as highly unreasonable and that if the said regulation is to be implemented multi-storeyed buildings cannot be built-up on small plots. They also criticised that Regulation No.3(a) restricting the construction of multi-storeyed buildings in certain zones mentioned in Appendix ‘A’ cover almost the entire area of the twin cities with the result that where there is need they are prohibited and where there is no need they are permitted. The learned Counsel submits that the total prohibition in certain areas violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In the counter it is mentioned that there is no total prohibition on the construction of the multi-storeyed buildings. It is pointed out that only such buildings whose height is more than 15 meters or more, or a building with more than four floors is prohibited since these areas are heavily over-crowded and congested and the traffic conditions do not provide for accommodation for more floors and prohibition is limited to less than 1/4th area in the Municipal Corporation limits. It is evident from the Regulations that construction upto four floors is permissible in the area. Taking into account the various averments in the counter affidavit, we are of the view that they are reasonable restrictions made in public interest and does not infringe any fundamental rights of the petitioners. Further, these regulations are made in consultation with several persons with some expertise on the subject and in the light of suggestions made by them. From the counter it is seen that the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.668, Municipal Administration dated 9.10.1980 constituted a working brief with some members to study the building rules for construction of multi-storeyed buildings. The committee consisted of (1) The Secretary, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department; (2) Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad; (3) Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority; (4) Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad; (5) Director of Fire Services; (6) Commissioner of Police and (7) President of Local Chapter of Member Indian Institute of Architecture. On the suggestions made by them, the regulations were made. It is not desirable to interfere with such regulations unless they are highly irrational. We are unable to say that any one of these regulations suffer from this vice except to the extent indicated above.
We will now take up Writ Petition No. 8238 of 1981. The grievance is about the Building Bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad as amended in G.O.Ms.No. 905 dated 10-8-1981. The main objection is that the procedure contemplated u
To read more, log on to hmda.gov.in
In today's competitive world reliable Web Hosting is very critical
to your business success !
Starting an IT consulting business requires patience and dedication.
Joing our Network Blog today where many people blogs about the IT network