THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20014 of 2010 Dated 23.03.2011 Between: Chunchu Venkataiah …Petitioner And The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Vidya Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4and 6: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri G. Elisha, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in preventing respondent No.6 from raising construction of a residential building without obtaining permission from the competent authority as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri N. Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Elisha, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayats representing respondent No.5. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that respondent No.6 is owning plot adjoining his property, having purchased the same from the legal representatives of one Donthu Rangaiah. He further stated that there was civil litigation between him and the said Rangaiah, which ended in his favour. The petitioner also stated that recently respondent No.6 removed the existing slab on the compound wall of his land to the extent of 1’ 4” (one feet and four inches) without obtaining building permission from respondent No.5 and commenced the construction. That his representation dated 11.06.2010 made to the respondents has not yielded any response. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the above-noted relief. On 14.03.2011, Sri M.Venkata Raghu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, stated that on 13.10.2010 respondent No.5 Gram Panchayat has granted building permission to his client and that the construction is being raised in accordance with the sanctioned plan. He has sought for time along with Sri G.Elisha, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5 for filing counter- affidavits. Today, at the hearing, no counter-affidavits have been filed. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 is not present at the hearing. However, in the light of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.6 on 14.03.2011 that respondent No.5 has granted building permission and that the construction is being made in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.5 to verify whether the building permission has been granted in favour of respondent No.6 and if so, he has been carrying on the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. If it is found that either the building permission has not been granted or that respondent No.6 is constructing in deviation of the sanctioned plan, respondent No.5 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving notice to respondent No.6. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.25362 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd March, 2011 GHN