THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 5971 of 2010 Dated: 05.07.2010 Between: Talasani Chandrasekhar Reddy, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 5971 of 2010 O R D E R : The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of Flat No. 202 in the premises bearing Municipal Door No.6-3-553/S/2 named Classic Court Annexure. It is alleged that the 4th respondent, who claimed to have purchased the premises bearing No.6-3-553 from the original owner Smt.Vimala Srinivasan, started digging the entire land in the said premises for laying necessary foundation to build a commercial complex. It is pleaded that Classic Court Annexure in which the petitioner owns the flat was situated in the rear portion of the premises bearing Dr.No.6-3-553 and that the 4th respondent had dug even the road provided to reach the Classic Court Annexure without leaving any ingress and aggress to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that the premises bearing Dr.No.6-3-553/S/2 was also originally owned by Smt. Vimala Srinivasan, the vendor of the 4th respondent and that as per the building permit No.61/84 dated 04.03.1999 Classic Court Annexure which was on the back side of the plot, should be provided the necessary road. It is alleged that the construction of commercial complex started by the 4th respondent was in total violation of the building permit No.61/84 dated 04.03.1999 and therefore, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 10.02.2010 to the 1st respondent complaining about the illegal action of the 4th respondent and requesting to take necessary steps. However, the 1st respondent failed to take any action and in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent was going ahead by closing the road leading to the petitioner’s flat in Classic Court Annexure. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 is arbitrary and illegal. This Court, while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 19.03.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.7701 of 2010 directed the 4th respondent not to make any further construction. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, while stating that except the petitioner no other flat owner in Classic Court Annexure claimed passage in question, it is contended that the writ petition was filed only to blackmail the 4th respondent. It is alleged that as a matter of fact, no permission for construction of flats as claimed by the petitioner was granted by the 1st respondent and there was only a permission for construction of single independent unit. In violation of the said permission, the petitioner and others had converted the same into flats. Even with regard to the entrance to the Classic Court Annexure, it is stated that the entrance was from the road running from West to East. The plan filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition has been disputed and it is claimed that the 4th respondent had purchased the property with existing building covered by compound wall and there was no passage to the property over which Classic Court Annexure was constructed. Though no counter is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation while placing before this Court the original record, submitted that the 4th respondent had illegally and unauthorizedly dug the cellar without specific permission from the Corporation and that the said excavation which was about 15 to 20 feet depth, was likely to endanger the adjoining properties of the neighbours. While pointing out that towards the Western side of the property in question, there is a heavy structure consisting of cellar, sub-cellar and five upper floors for IT building, the learned standing counsel further submitted that the illegal excavation of the cellar made by the 4th respondent without any retaining wall towards the property of the neighbours might cause danger not only to the adjacent property but also to the lives of the public in case of heavy rainfall. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the cellar was dug only in terms of the permission granted by the Corporation on payment of permit fee of Rs.1,32,12,745/- and the allegation that the excavations were made unauthorizedly was absolutely false and without any basis. It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties and the record placed before this Court that the matter involves various disputed questions of fact, which can not be enquired into and decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India merely on the basis of the affidavits. However, the material available on record shows that the petitioner made a representation complaining about the alleged illegal/unauthorised constructions being made by the 4th respondent and the said complaint was received in the Office of the 1st respondent on 10.02.2010. That being so, the 1st respondent is bound to make the necessary enquiry into the allegations and in case it is found that the constructions being made by the 4th respondent are in violation of the building permit, appropriate action shall be taken following due process of law. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to make the necessary enquiry into the allegations made in the petitioner’s representation dated 10.02.2010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent is at liberty to take the necessary steps to safeguard the adjacent properties and to avoid any untoward incident on account of the excavations already made by the 4th respondent. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05.07.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. B/o KLP