IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.16005 of 2011 Between: Dr.Syed Mohmood Najmi. … Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Commissioner and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ali Farooq. Counsel for the respondents: Sri R.Radhakrisha Reddy for R1 to R.3. None for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not removing/demolishing the illegal constructions made by respondent No.4 in the premises bearing No.10-5-753 (244/3RT), Vijaynagar Colony, P.S.Nagar, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforementioned premises of respondent No.4 is on the western side of the petitioner’s house; that respondent No.4 is making constructions in the said premises without leaving set back on the eastern side, i.e., on the side of the petitioner’s house, in deviation of the sanctioned plan; and that in spite of his submitting representations dated 24-4-2011 and 1-6-2011 for removing the said illegal constructions, respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not take any action. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. Even though notice was sent to respondent No.4, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘refused’. Hence, there is deemed service on respondent No.4, on whose behalf no one appeared at the hearing today. I have heard Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel, submitted that as against the approved plan for stilt + two upper floors, respondent No.4 has started construction by raising over and above what is permitted in the sanctioned plan; and that when respondent No.1 has issued notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.1085 of 2011 and I.A.No.210 of 2011 in the court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking injunction. He further submitted that an order of status quo was granted by the civil Court on 1-6-2011 till 22-6-2011 and the information whether the said interim order was extended subsequently or not is not presently available. In my prima facie opinion, if respondent No.4 is constructing in deviation of the sanctioned plan, the Corporation and its officials are bound to act in accordance with law to prevent such construction and take action against the construction already made in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Unless the status quo order is extended beyond 22-6-2011 and is in force as on today, respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall take action against the unauthorized constructions in pursuance of the notice already issued under Section 452 of the Act. If the order of status quo has been extended and is in force as on today, the Corporation shall take appropriate steps to contest the said suit and get the interim order vacated by the court below. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.19180 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-8-2011 MNR