IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18854 of 2006 Between: G. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Venkatesam, R/o.1-25-35, Sai Baba Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad-11 ..... PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act as also Municipal Corporation Building Byelaws, 1981 the action of the Respondent in issuing Lr.No.848/CSR/TP3/2004/1462 dated 13.06.2006 and set aside the same and issuing a consequential direction to the Respondent to forthwith approve tha plan submitted by the petitioner for construction of house bearing No.1-9-1113/29 in an extent of 260 Sq.yds situate at Seetharam Nagar, Near Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad and pass such other or further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MEKA RAJASEKHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by G.Anjaneyulu assailing the proceedings, dated 13.06.2006 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, whereby and where under, the respondents directed him to exclude an extent of 73.00 square meters and submit the house building permission application. The petitioner claims to be the owner of 260 square yards situated at Seetharamnagar, near Vidyanagar, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under document No.2340 of 1985, dated 11.04.1985. When the respondent oﬃcials started digging in the land owned by the petitioner, he ﬁled W.P.No.2220 of 1995 to declare their action as illegal. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 26.08.1996 holding that the petitioner has an eﬃcacious alternative remedy. There after, he ﬁled O.S.No.276 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration that he is an absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. He also sought for permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with construction of the property. The suit came to be decreed on 14.12.1999. The petitioner made a representation, dated 07.08.1994 to the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Oﬃcer on Special Duty, Municipal Administration. The Urban Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued memo, dated 15.11.1994, which reads as follows: “The attention of the Commissioner and Special Oﬃcer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is invited to the references cited and she is informed that as there is no need to acquire the area covered by 2 plot i.e., Pr.No.1-9-113/29 and 1-9-113/30 and as the same had to be deleted from slum boundary there may not be any objection for the deletion of the two sites owned by Sri M.C.Nanik Rao and Sri G.Anjaneyulu. The Commissioner and Special Oﬃcer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is therefore requested to delete those two plots from slum area and consider building permission as per rules and regulation in force”. Subsequently the petitioner made an application to respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking permission to construct a house in 260 square yards situated at Seetharamnagar, Vidyanadar, Hyderabad. The respondent by its letter, dated 08.05.2002 requested the petitioner to re-submit the plan. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.06.2002. The respondent issued a letter, dated 08.07.2002 directing the petitioner to furnish the details. There after, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.27300 of 2005 seeking direction to the respondent to sanction building permission. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order, dated 28.08.2005 directing the respondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders. When the respondent Corporation failed to pass appropriate orders, the petitioner filed C.C.428 of 2006. After ﬁling C.C., the respondent issued a letter, dated 13.6.2006, which reads as hereunder: “Proposals submitted by you for the construction Ground+2 ﬂoors have been examined and considered. The permission applied by you can not be granted since the part of land required for public purpose for providing access to the slum dwellers. Therefore, you are required to submit the revised plans excluding the land required for public purpose to an extent of 73.00 sq.mts. for taking further action. The land required is for the public purpose will be acquired following due process of law. The sketch showing the extent of land required for public purpose is enclosed for reference and to submit the revised plans, so as to take further necessary action in the matter”. The said letter is under challenge in the writ petition. The respondent Corporation ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. Khaja Nayeemuddin has sworn in to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that an extent of 73.00 square yards is required for providing access to the slum dwellers, which is a public purpose. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as on this day, there is no proposal for laying road in 73.00 square meters of land and therefore, directing the petitioner to submit revised plans cannot be sustained. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that there is a proposal to lay the road and for which, 73.00 square meters of site owned by the petitioner is required and proposals for acquisition are also being initiated. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the building permission application of the petitioner subject to his undertaking that he will not claim structural compensation in the event of 73.00 square meters of land is being acquired by the respondent Corporation for public purpose. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY J., Dt.29.09.2008 tjs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 2.2CD copies.