IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4047 of 2008 Between: S.P. Manjula, W/o. Dr. M. Srinivas, R/o. 4-1-248/3, Hanman Tekdi, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by Commissioner, Beside B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Dr. Sunanda Lakshman Gaddalay, W/o. Dr. G. Lakshmana Rao, H.No. 15-1-440, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any steps on the illegal and unauthorized structures and also constructions in demolition portion being made by the 2nd respondent in respect of house bearing D.No. 4-1-247, situated at Hanman Tekdi, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad, by considering the representations of the Petitioner dt. 2-2-2008 and 4-2-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the 1st respondent and his subordinates to prevent the 2nd respondent to made un-authorized constructions and also to demolish the unauthorized structures madein the premises bearing No. D.No. 4-1-247 situated at Hanmantekdi, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 Counsel for respondent No.2: Neeraja Reddy The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been ﬁled by S.P.Manjula assailing the inaction of the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad represented by Commissioner/ﬁrst respondent in not taking steps for removal of the un-authorised structures being made by Dr.Sunanda Lakshman Guddalay/second respondent. The petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of house bearing No.4-1-248/6, Hanmantekdi Lane, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad. When the second respondent started making constructions after removing the existing building in the premises bearing D.No.4-1-247, the petitioner submitted representations to the ﬁrst respondent complaining that the second respondent is making constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The petitioner earlier ﬁled W.P.No.7233 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondents to remove the un- authorised and illegal constructions being made by the second respondent in respect of the premises bearing D.No.4-1-247. The Corporation demolished a part of unauthorized constructions leaving a major part of unauthorized construction on the assurance of the 2nd respondent that he would remove the unauthorized structures on his own in order to protect the building. But the second respondent started reconstruction of the demolished portion on 19.2.2008. Hence, the writ petition. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 28-02-2008. An interim order directing the ﬁrst respondent to forthwith stop the constructions of un-authorised structures by the second respondent came to be granted on the even date vide W.P.M.P.No.5287 of 2008. The second respondent entered appearance and ﬁled W.V.M.P.No.1059 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ﬁrst respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner earlier ﬁled W.P.No.7233 of 2007 and since the Municipality swang into the action and demolished the deviated portions, she did not pursue the writ petition and subsequently, the second respondent commenced further constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan and it necessitated the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent secured building permission from the ﬁrst respondent and proceeding with the constructions in accordance with the sanctioned plan. A further submission has been made that with regard to certain deviations in the construction, an application has been ﬁled under B.P.S. and the said application is pending consideration. He would also contend that because of the interim order, the second respondent is not in a position to complete the construction even according to the sanctioned plan. It appears the second respondent ﬁled O.S.No.987 of 2008 questioning the action of the ﬁrst respondent in trying to demolish the structures. The said suit is stated to be pending consideration. A fact remains that the petitioner/second respondent made an application for regularization of certain deviations made in the aforesaid construction and the said application is stated to be pending. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to complete the process of removal of un-authorised constructions made by the second respondent after disposal of the application ﬁled under B.P.S.. It is also made clear that the second respondent is at liberty to proceed with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY J., Dt.10.09.2008 Tjs Note: c.c.in one week B/o (tjs) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by Commissioner, Beside B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2.2CD copies