IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22646 of 2010 Between: T.M. Krishnamurthy. … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary Municipal Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Achutha Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy Counsel for respondents 4&5: Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22646 of 2010 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taen up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in restraining respondent Nos.4 and 5 from raising illegal structures contrary to the sanctioned building permission in respect of plot No.22 in Sy.No.299/1 part of Malkajgiri Municipal Circle, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the neighbour of the abovementioned premises owned by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained building permission for construction of ground plus two floors on 26.10.2004 from the erstwhile Malkajgiri Municipality. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have constructed a cellar in addition to the ground plus two floors as permitted by respondent No.2. The petitioner has stated that on account of digging of earth for cellar, he is experiencing seepage in his premises causing damage to his property. His further grievance is that despite the representation made by him to respondent Nos.2 and 3, they have not been taking any action against the illegal constructions raised by respondent Nos.4 and 5. On behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that as the site, over which the constructions were made, is a low lying area, to the extent of low lying portion of the plot a cellar was constructed for the purpose of car parking and that no constructions are made in the cellar portion. It is further stated that respondent No.4 made an application for regularisation of structures in the premises under Building Penalisation Scheme in March 2008 by paying necessary fees and that subsequently respondent No.4 has executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent No.5. At the hearing, Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2, says that he has no instructions on the status of the application filed by respondent No.4 for regularisation. Inasmuch as respondent No.4’s application for regularisation under the Building Penalisation Scheme is stated to be pending, it would be appropriate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to dispose of the said application, if not already done, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Depending upon the result of respondent No.4’s application, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take action against the structures raised by respondent Nos.4 and 5 contrary to the sanctioned plan and the decision taken thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28870 of 2010 and WVMP.No.4713 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.08.2011 ES