THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30742 of 2010 Date:08.02.2011 Between: Smt. V. Lakshmi ..... Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Rajsekhar Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 4: Sri A.P. Suresh The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in preventing respondent No.4 from raising unauthorised construction over terrace of the premises – Krishna Residency constructed over plot No.9/A comprised in survey No.233/4 of Nizampet village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without valid permission as illegal and arbitrary. Though time was taken for filing counter-affidavit, respondent No.4 has not filed a counter-affidavit. At the hearing there is no representation for the said respondent. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter-affidavit. I have heard Sri K.Rajsekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has obtained permission for construction of ground plus three upper floors, vide permission dated 05.02.2007 issued by respondent No.3, that the petitioner purchased a semi furnished flat bearing No.A-102, Block – A, on first floor with a built up area 1404 sq. ft. inclusive of common areas and car parking together with undivided share of 38.33 sq. yds. for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 05.11.2008. The petitioner further pleaded that under clause (i) of the terms and conditions of the sale deed, respondent No.4 specifically agreed that he shall not raise any further construction over the terrace of the building or any part thereof and that all the flat owners shall have equal rights on the terrace. The petitioner stated that contrary to the sanctioned plan and the recitals in the sale deed, respondent No.4 started constructing a duplex house over the terrace without obtaining any permission from respondent No.3. The petitioner got a legal notice issued to respondent No.4 apart from approaching respondent No.3 for appropriate action. As no action was initiated by respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Executive Officer - respondent No.2 has inter alia stated that as respondent No.4 started construction in deviation of the approved plan, immediately respondent No.3 has issued a notice to stop construction and that on receiving such notice, respondent No.4 stopped the construction. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on apprehension. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 borders on vagueness. He has not indicated in the counter-affidavit as to the date on which notice was given to respondent No.4. No copy of the notice is enclosed to the counter-affidavit. The allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.4 has been constructing in deviation of the sanctioned plan has remained uncontroverted. Moreover, respondent No.2 has admitted the said allegation and has stated that a notice was issued to respondent No.4 to stop the construction. The duty of respondent No.2 will not end with mere issuance of a notice for stoppage of construction. He shall ensure that the construction already made in deviation of the sanctioned plan is removed after following due procedure. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not appear to have made any efforts in this direction. In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to initiate immediate steps for removal of unauthorized construction made by respondent No.4 after following procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder and complete this process within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 08.12.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.39120 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th February, 2011 GHN