THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.31013 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with her construction in her plot, as per the plan submitted by her along with her application for the proposed construction of the building in the place of the old building bearing Door No.30-10-3/1, situated in Plot Nos.202 and 204, Block No.41 in T.S.No.1452 of Allipuram Ward at Pidapartivari Street, Dabagardens, Visakapatnam, as the construction falls within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998, and the area of her plot is less than 100 sq. mtrs and allow her to complete the construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that she purchased an old dilapidated house bearing Door No.30-10-3/1, admeasuring 890 sq. ft. in Plot Nos.202 and 204, Block No.41, T.S.No.1452 of Allipuram Ward situated at Pidapartivari Street, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. The total extent of the site is 104 sq. yards i.e., 86.90 sq. mtrs. and the site is not abutting any road. The house is assessed to tax and it has got all facilities like water connection, electricity connection etc. As she intends to reconstruct the house, she filed an application in B.A.No.11434/2011/ACP-III, dated 16-04-2011 before the 2nd respondent for approval of the plan for construction of residential building with R.C.C. roof, ground and first floors in the place of existing old building by paying necessary charges. However, the 2nd respondent without applying its mind, has returned her application with an endorsement, dated 21-09-2011 stating that according to G.O.Ms.No.678, dated 07-09-2007, set backs are to be left towards the road side to an extent of 1.5 mtrs, and her proposed construction is in violation of Rule 6(i) of the said G.O. It is further stated that Rule 6(i) has no application to her house, as it is not abutting any road. Her site is situated in old/existing built up area and in fact is congested and having no exposure to any road and is connected by 4 ft. width common lane for ingress and egress and the proposed height is less than the suggested Rule. Therefore, the requirement under Table-III is for a property of Plot size of 100 sq. mtrs., no parking provision is provided as mandatory and since the size of the said land being 86.90 mtrs., below 100 sq. mtrs., the rule has no application. Though the 2nd respondent by his endorsement, dated 21-09-2011, informed her that her plan and application are returned, in fact they are not returned, but are retained by the 2nd respondent’s office till date and are lying with the 2nd respondent. A reading of G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998, would go to show that if a construction is sought to be made in a plot which is less than 100 sq. mtrs., she need not obtain permission at all and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with her building in any manner. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents are interfering with the construction of the house though it was being constructed as per the building byelaws and, therefore, she seeks to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with her construction. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that no permission is required for construction of the building in a site where the extent of the site is less than 100 sq. yards, but as per G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998, the construction shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the master plan, zonal regulations and building byelaws. The petitioner is said to have constructed a house in the site to an extent of less than 100 sq. yards. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is making construction strictly in accordance with the building byelaws. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has no authority to interfere with the construction made by the petitioner. Whether the petitioner is making construction in accordance with the building byelaws and zonal regulations or not, it is for the 2nd respondent to verify the same. Though the building plan may not be necessary in terms of G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998, the petitioner has to make construction strictly in accordance with the zonal regulation, building beylaws and the rules made thereunder. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s construction, if she is making construction in accordance with the building byelaws and zonal regulations. If there is any deviation, liberty is given to the 2nd respondent to take action in accordance with law, after giving notice calling for explanation from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 28-11-2011 Prv