IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27213 of 2006 Between: 1 B. Ananth Rao, S/o. Late B. Raja Mallaiah, R/o. TRT No. 16, MCH No. 2-2-3/25, Vidyanagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 2 B. Suresh, S/o. Late B. Raja Mallaiah, R/o. TRT No. 16, MCH No. 2-2-3/25, Vidyanagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 3 Rangamma, W/o. Lage David, R/o. TRT No. 13, MCH No. 2-2-3/22, Vidyanagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 4 B. Narsing Rao, s/o. Late B. Kistaiah, R/o. TRT No. 15, MCH No. 2-2-45/5, Vidyanagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 5 B. Balamani, w/o. M. Krishna Rao, R/o. TRT No. 14, MCH No. 2-2-3/23, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Chief City Planner, Town Planning Section (HO), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondentrs in refusing to grant permission in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing H.Nos.2-2-3/22, 23, 25 & 45/5, admeasuring 404 square yards of site situated at Vidyanagar, Hyderabad,as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art. 300-A constitution of India and provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission in favour of petitioners and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 27213 OF 2006 ORDER: 1. The writ petitioners who are five in number call in question the action of the respondents in refusing to grant building permission in their favour in respect of the property bearing H.Nos. 2-2-3/22,23,25 & 45/5, admeasuring 404 square yards of site situated at Vidayanagar, Hyderabad. 2. 1st petitioner got 188.84 square yards bearing TRT No. 16 in premises No. 2-2-3/25 under a Will dated 20-8-1995 executed by his father late Raja Mallaiah. His father purchased the premises bearing No. 2-2- 3/25 under sale deed dated 18-12-1992. 3. 3rd petitioner purchased 188.84 square yards bearing TRT No. 13 in premises No. 2-2-3/22 under registered sale deed dated 3-11-2005. 4. 4th petitioner purchased 44.17 square yards in TRT No. 15, in premises No. 2-2-45/15, through registered sale deed dated 15-7-2002. 5. One Smt. D. Pankaja Mala purchased 44.117 square yards bearing TRT No. 14, in premises No. 2-2- 3/23 through registered sale deed dated 29-5-1991. 6. 5th petitioner purchased the premises from Smt. D. Pankaja Mala under registered sale deed dated 29- 5-1991. All the petitioners decided to construct a building by demolishing the existing structures in the premises bearing NO. 2-2-3/22,23,25 & 45/5, situated at Vidyaanagar, Hyderabad. They submitted application dated 23-1-2006 seeking permission for construction of the building comprising ground plus three upper floors. Their building permission came to be rejected by the respondents under proceeding No.0044/CSC/TP3/06, dated 10-5-2006. The said proceedings are under challenged in this writ petition. 7. Rule nisi came to be issued on 15-3-2007. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit. 8. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the total ground floor area including the appurtenant area is 377.68 square yards. Whereas the petitioner submitted the plan for construction of the building over an extent of 404 square yards. Para 3 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “In reply to paras 3 to 6 of the affidavit, I submit that after careful examination of the registered documents submitted by the petitioners with building application, it is found that one late Sri B. Raja Mallaiah ( said to have the father of the 1st and the 2nd petitioner) purchased Flat No. TRT 16 on ground Floor to an extent of 188.84 square yards as per the document number 3170/92 including appurtenant land. Smt. Rangamma (3rd petitioner) purchased Flat No. TRT 13, on ground floor to an extent of 188.84 square yards as per the document number 3515/05 including appurtenant land. B. Narsing Rao (4th petitioner) purchase Flat No. TRT 15 on First Floor to an extent of 44.17 square yards as per the document number 1900/02; Smt. Pankaja Mala Purchased Flat No. TRT 14, on First Floor to an extent of 44.17 square yards as per document number 1247/91 and subsequently the above said Flat purchased by 5th petitioner as per the registered document dated 11-9-1993. Thus the total ground floor area including the appurtenant land is only 377.58 square yards but the petitioners have submitted the application for construction of building over an extent of 404 square yards. Hence, the said application was rejected on the ground that the total extent of area is not tallying with the registered documents which are submitted along with the application”. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the total area owned by the petitioner is 466.02 square yards. For resolving the dispute with regard to the extent of the land owned by the petitioners, a direction has been given to the 2nd respondent to depute one of his Surveyors to verify the extent of the premises wherein the petitioners proposed to construct building. Pursuant to the direction, the City Planner inspected site of the petitioners and submitted a report. The report reads as hereunder. “Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 27213 of 2006, dated 14-11-2008, the site in question was inspected and surveyed by the City Planner on 01-12-2008, along with concerned I/c Assistant City Planner and the following have been noticed. ON inspection and survey the measurements of the site have been taken. At present (4) TRT quarters No.13,14,15, and 16 ( consisting of Ground and First floor) have been dismantled. The total extent of the site is 377.68 square meters excluding common areas, i.e. common passage and stair case leading to first floor and the same is tallying with the documents pertains to ground floor quarters. The extent of common areas are not mentioned in the registered documents. Hence, this report” 11. It is explicit from the report that the total extent owned by the petitioner is 377.68 square yards excluding the common area 12. In view of the report the rejection order passed by the respondents that the total extent of the land owned by the petitioner is 377.68 square yards cannot be sustained. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd Respondent to reconsider the building plans submitted by the petitioners keeping in view of the report dated 14-11-2008 submitted by the City Planner. In case the 2nd respondent requires a revised plan, the petitioners have to submit the same and thereupon the 2nd respondent shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with the building Rules and Regulation within four weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 3rd March, 2009. Note: C.C. in a week B/o KM THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 27213 OF 2006 3rd March, 2009.