THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.12189 OF 2006 Dated 18th December, 2009 Between : Kala Mansion Flat Owners’ Association and Another …Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad And three others …Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in permitting the third and fourth respondents to construct a multi-storeyed commercial complex over the property bearing No.1-2-265, S.D.Road, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the first respondent to take immediate action to stop further construction on the said property by the third and fourth respondents and to demolish the illegal construction, already made. The case of the petitioners is that they are the immediate neighbours of the above said property, for which the fourth respondent is the owner; that since the property admeasures only 320 square yards, as per the revised building Rules issued by the Government, no multi-storeyed construction can take place thereon; that the fourth respondent entered into a development agreement with the third respondent-Builders to develop the above said property into a multi-storeyed commercial complex, and started construction of the building, without obtaining the consent of the immediate neighbours i.e., the petitioners, as is required under the revised building Rules and that in fact, the fourth respondent completely deviated from the plan sanctioned by the first respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad; that the petitioners lodged a complaint in respect of the said illegal construction before the first respondent on 20.05.2005, and also given a remainder on 26.05.2006, but in vain. Hence, they approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition with the prayer stated supra. This Court, ordered notice before admission on 20.06.2006 and, on 27.01.2009, passed an interim order directing the unofficial respondents not to create any third party rights in respect of the property in question. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad-the first respondent, it is stated, inter alia, that the fourth respondent obtained building permission from the Corporation vide permit dated 24.08.2005 for construction of ground floor for parking + two upper floors for commercial purpose; that as the third respondent excavated the land up to 6’-00” depth, with an intention to lay unauthorised basement floor, the officials of the respondent Corporation have stopped the said work and directed him to fill up the same and the third respondent filled the same with debris and sand; that thereafter also the third respondent proceeded with the construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan; that the Corporation issued show cause notice on 18.04.2006 to the fourth respondent; that the fourth respondent filed O.S.No.246 of 2006 before III-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained an injunction order against the Corporation vide order dated 13.04.2006 in I.A.No.681 of 2006 and that the Corporation filed vacate stay petition. It is further stated in the counter that since the injunction order is in force against it, the Corporation could not take any action in the matter. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the instant writ petition is filed at the behest of one Sanjeev Karan, who has some disputes with the fourth respondent; that they have not deviated from the sanctioned plan and that no consent of the neighbours, as alleged by the petitioners, is required for constructing commercial complex in commercial area. Filing of O.S.No.246 of 2006 by the fourth respondent and obtaining of injunction order by him against the Corporation are also averred in the counter-affidavit. It is also stated that for the purpose of regularisation of some minor deviations committed by them, while constructing the building, the fourth respondent filed an application before the first respondent under the Building Penalisation Scheme (for short “BPS”) for regularisation of the constructions, and that the said application is pending consideration. Today, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent also produced before this Court, a copy of the report received by him from the first respondent, wherein it is mentioned that the fourth respondent submitted an application under BPS, for regularisation, on 27.05.2008, and that the same is pending consideration. The learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, agreed for disposal of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to file all their objections before the first respondent to the application of the fourth respondent, which is filed under BPS, and that the first respondent be directed to consider the same, at the time of disposal of the said application. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (1) That as and when the first respondent takes up the application of the fourth respondent dated 27.05.2008, made under BPS, for regularisation of the constructions, he shall issue notices to the petitioners calling for their objections, if any. (2) Upon considering the objections, if any, to be filed by the petitioners, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the application of the fourth respondent. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J Dated 18th December, 2009 vrn