IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 6926 of 1999 BETWEEN: Sanjeev Anant Barve S/o. Late Anant K. Barve, R/o. 41, LIC Colony, Opp: Indira Park, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle-V, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Banjara Hills, Road No.2, Hyderabad. 5 Kollu Gopala Krishna S/o. Kotaiah, R/o.134-B, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 6 V. Nagender Babu S/o. V. Gopal Rao, R/o. 205, My Home Madhuban Apartments, 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more preferably in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Letter No.2247/2311/ACP/CU/48/98 issued by the Second Respondent dt.23.11.1998 and upon perusal of the same be pleased to quash the and set aside the same as arbitrary and illegal and violative of the Petitioner's fundamental rights in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MILIND G GOKHALE Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. KALPANA EKBOTE SC FOR MPL CORP GP FOR REVENUE MR. T. DASARADHA RAMAIAH FOR R6 The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the notice issued by the second respondent dated 23.11.1998 directing the petitioner to stop further construction of the building in the premises bearing No.8-2- 269/19/S/F, Road No.2, Banjara Hills on the ground that a land grabbing case is pending against him in LGC.No.124 of 1998 filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal/fourth respondent herein and until and unless the matter is settled in the land grabbing Court it may not be possible to settle the matter over the ownership. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for construction of building and that the petitioner proceeded with the construction work as per the building sanction plan and permit granted by the respondents 1 and 2. This Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated 23.04.1999 granted interim direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the construction work being done by the petitioner on the suit schedule premises as per the building construction plan and building permit granted by the respondents 1 and 2. 3. Counter has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 stating that without knowing about the file of LGC.No.124 of 1998 by the MRO, Shaikpet, the permission was granted and the petitioner also did not bring to the notice of the Corporation about the pending land grabbing case, therefore, permission was erroneously was released on 18.06.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced the construction work and raised RCC columns up to 8 feet and when the corporation came to know about the fact that the land grabbing case is pending, the impugned notice has been issued. 4. Now that the entire construction has been completed by virtue of the interim direction of this Court, I am of the opinion that any construction and ownership of the property will be subject to the outcome of the case in LGC.No.124 of 1998. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of keeping it open to the respondents to take appropriate action, as per the orders to be passed in LGC.No.124 of 1998, in accordance with law. However, if there are any deviations pursuant to the building construction plan and permit, it is open to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action in accordance with law pointing out the particulars of the deviations. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 22, 2008 DSK