HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.11718 of 2005 Date: December 22, 2009 Between: Syed Rafeeque, S/o. Syed Ahmed, Age: 62 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o.H.No.16-7-435, Malakpet, Hyderabad … Petitioner And Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, and three others … Respondents Order: The petitioner has questioned Lr.No.1/Open/8/16/2005, dated 21-05-2005, issued by the respondent, rejecting his claim for grant of building permission, after considering the same pursuant to the directions of this court in W.P.No.8491 of 2005 dated 15-04-2005, on the following grounds: a) That the site under reference is located beside the Murkinala of Malakpet, which is earmarked as recreational use zone in the Zonal Development Plan as such permission for residential use is not permissible b) The site under reference is located beside the Murkinala of Malakpet sold by APHC and it is an open plot for which approved sub-division/layout is required U/s.388 of the HMC Act, 1955. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of a piece of land admeasuring 50.5 Sq. yards, situated at Ward No.16, Block No.8, Murkinala, Malakpet, Hyderabad, having purchased the same by way of registered sale deed dated 30-10-2001. It is stated that when the said piece of land was closed by fencing by the respondents, he approached this court and filed W.P.No.19082 of 2003 and the same was disposed of by this court by order dated 20-01-2004 permitting him to make a representation and to identify the land as per the sale deed executed in his favour and on such representation being made, it would be open to the respondent to readjust the fencing. It is stated that on his filing a representation, the fencing was removed. While things stood thus, it is stated that on 29-01-2005, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of permission of a residential house by paying necessary amount towards building permission fee and as no orders were passed on the said application, under deemed permission, he proceeded with the construction. It is stated that, thereafter, show cause notice dated 23-03-2005 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had violated the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, to which the petitioner is stated to have submitted explanation on 28-03-2004. It is stated that when the said explanation was not received and when attempts were made to demolish the property, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7069 of 2004 before this court, which was disposed of directing the Corporation to receive the said explanation and not to interfere with the property of the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but a notice dated 12-04-2005 was issued to the petitioner alleging that rejection order dated 17-02-2005 was served on him. Thereafter, alleging that no such rejection order was served on him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8491 of 2005 challenging the notice dated 12-04-2005, which was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation, treating the notice dated 12-04-2005 as a show cause notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he submitted a representation dated 13-04-2005, the respondents without properly considering the same, have issued the impugned letter. Even according to the petitioner, the land in question is under recreational use zone in the Zonal Development Plan. While it is open to the petitioner to apply for change of land use by filing an application before the competent authority under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, but so long as the land in question is under recreational zone in the Zonal Development Plan, respondents cannot grant any permission for construction of a residential building therein, as stated in the impugned letter. Though the petitioner seeks to rely on the plan whereby division of plots is made by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, but, the same is not an approved plan as contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the grounds stated in the impugned letter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner applies for change of land use, it would be open to the competent authority to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for grant of permission for construction, afresh, in case his request for change of land use is considered by the competent authority and appropriate orders are passed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 22, 2009 MRR