THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 4145 of 2009 O r d e r: Aggrieved by the inaction of the sole respondent, namely the Commissioner, Qutbullapur Municipality, in considering his representation dated 10.04.2007 for grant of permission for construction of house, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that he purchased the property in question, and that he made representation dated 10.04.2007 to the respondent, for grant of permission for construction of a house therein, and as there was no response, he constructed a house. While so, based on a complaint lodged by one Sri M. Mohanlal, residing just opposite to his house, the respondent issued notice dated 18.02.2009 to which he submitted explanation through his Advocate on 25.02.2009. The petitioner states that no permission is required to be obtained if the construction to be made in the plot, is less than 100 Sq. yds., and submits that the inaction of the respondent in not granting permission pursuant to his representation, and seeking to interfere with the construction made by him, based on the complaint lodged by the owner of the house, residing opposite to him, is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality. Though the petitioner claims that he has purchased the land on which he has constructed the house, the fact remains, he has not produced any registered sale deed or title deed to evidence that he having purchased the same, is the owner thereof. The materials produced by the respondent show that the place where the petitioner has constructed the house, is not an approved lay out, and that the said lay out was formed in a government land, and that the petitioner who resides at the dead end corner of the road, has constructed a room encroaching the road and thereby blocked the passage of one Sri. M. Mohanlal, who resides just opposite to the house of the petitioner. That even though the petitioner was issued notice directing him to produce copy of patta, he has not produced any patta or sale deed to show that he is the rightful owner of the plot on which he constructed the room. Since the petitioner, neither before the respondent pursuant to the notice issued by him nor before this Court either along with the writ petition or after filing the writ petition, has produced any material to show that he is the owner of the plot, thereby justifying his construction of a room on the plot, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondent in seeking to demolish the room, nor can any direction be granted to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of permission, particularly when the land on which the petitioner is said to have constructed the room, is said to be a road and property of the respondent. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 17th March, 2009. KSR