IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5130 of 2008 Between: G.Ramakrishna H.No.9-134, near Sai Baba Temple Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad-500060 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy commissioner/Zonal Commissioner L.B.nagar Municipality, GHMC, Hyderabad 3 Sri A.V.V.Subrahmanyam, H.No.17-81/1&17-81/.2 Srinagar colony, Road No.14, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500060 4 Sri D.Raghu Kumar, H.No.9-41, II floor,Sri Manjulatha Nivas Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500060 .....RESPONDENTS 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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st & 2nd respondents in failing to conduct any inspection on the illegal, construction of 3rd and 4th respondents in the Municipal No.9-133, comes under Gaddiannaram circle of 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents No.1&2 to stall and demolish the illegal, constructions made Respondents No.1&2 to stall and demolish the illegal, constructions made by the Respondents No.3&4 the same is without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by G.Rama Krishna with a prayer to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st and 2nd respondents in failing to conduct inspection on the illegal constructions made by 3rd and 4th respondents in the Municipal No.9-133 which comes under Gaddiannaram Circle of 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the house bearing No.9-134, near Sai Baba Temple, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, having purchased the same in the year 1974 under a registered sale deed dated 10.06.1974. He constructed ground ﬂoor during 1976 duly obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, Gaddiannaram vide permit No.925/93, dated 30.10.1993. Third respondent is the owner of house bearing No.9-133 which is adjacent to the house of the petitioner. He entered into development agreement with the 4th respondent and thereupon, the existing building came to be demolished and new construction has commenced. It is the grievance of the petitioner that 4th respondent is proceeding with the construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Therefore, he presented representations to the Deputy Commissioner/Zonal Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality on 13-08-2007 and 13-12-2007. There being no action on his representations, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer stated supra. This writ petition came up for admission on 11.03.2008. While ordering notice to the respondents, 2nd respondent has been directed to submit a status report as to the constructions carried out by the 3rd and 4th respondents. The Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, L.B.Nagar Circle has placed on record the status report. As per the status report, the constructions made by the 3rd respondent are in deviation of the sanctioned plan. For better appreciation, I may refer to the relevant portion of the status report which reads as hereunder: “One Sri AVVR.Subramanyam, the owner of H.No.9-133 was obtained permission vide Proc.No.G/109/2005, Dt.2.12.2005 from the Commissioner of the then Gaddinnaram Municipality for the proposed construction of ground + 2 upper floors. He has constructed with the deviations against the sanctioned plan with the additional 2 extra ﬂoors excluding Cellar. The deviations tabulated as below for ready reference. Details As per Sanctioned plan As on site Deviations & Remarks Floor Deviating Ground + 2 UF Cellar + Ground + 4 Upper floors Cellar + 2 extra Floors Front 10’0’’ 4’0’’ 6’0’’ Rear 6’6” 3’0” 3’3” Side-1 5’0” 2’0” 3’0” Side-2 10.0” 3’0” 7’0” While the matter inquired with Sri A.V.V.R.Subramanyam, the owner of the above said property has described that in O.S.No.3593 of 2005, he has obtained injunction order restraining the respondent from interfering with the construction activities. Under the shelter of the above orders, the owner has continued the work. Again in I.A.No.6601 of 2005 in O.S.No.3593 of 2005 Mr.A.V.V.R Subramanyam has got extension orders for enquiries upto 13.6.2008.” 3rd and 4th respondents entered appearance through their counsel and ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the writ petitioner has been trying to exploit them from the beginning by putting psychological pressure of demolition. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent ﬁled O.S.No.3593 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy for permanent injunction and also moved I.A.No.6601 of 2005 and obtained interim injunction. Paragraph No.3 of the counter- affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “It is submitted that since some deviations had to be made for the eﬀective utilization of the land and for better living conditions and Vaasthu, the building was constructed mostly as per the sanctioned plan but with certain deviations. T he deviations does not cause any prejudices are in convenience to the neighbours in any manner. T he Government came up with a scheme for penalizaiton of buildings constructed in deviation and unauthorized buildings. By collection of penalty the 1st respondent is regularizing the deviations and u authorized structures. In accordance with the said scheme by payment of the prescribed penalty, we submitted an application for regularization from 15.7.2008. T he application is received under an Acknowledgment by the oﬃce of the respondents 1 and 2 the regularization is now under process. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for R1 and R2 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of R3 and R4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 3rd and 4th respondents constructed the building in utter violation of the sanctioned plan and in the process of construction, substantial damage has been caused to the premises of the petitioner. A further submission has been made that the status report of the 2nd respondent demonstrates the vilolations made by the 3rd and 4th respondents in constructing the building, for which necessary action has to be initiated by the 1st and 2nd respondents for demolition of the constructions made by 3rd and 4th respondents in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Learned counsel appearing for 3rd and 4th respondents submits that 3rd and 4th respondents have ﬁled civil suit and obtained temporary injunction and the interim injunction is subsisting and therefore, no Mandamus can be issued against 1st and 2nd respondents for violating the injunction order. A further submission has been made that 3rd and 4th respondents have ﬁled application for regularization of the deviations made in the process of construction and their application is pending consideration. A fact remains that 3rd and 4th respondents made certain deviations to the sanctioned plan in the process of construction. 3rd and 4th respondent made an application to the 1st and 2nd respondents for regularization of the deviations made by them in the process of construction and their application is stated to be pending. Indisputably, 3rd respondent ﬁled a suit against 1st respondent and obtained injunction and the injunction is subsisting as on this day. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to initiate necessary action with regard to the demolition of the constructions made by 3rd and 4th respondents in deviation of the sanctioned plan, after disposal of the injunction application in the civil suit and the building permission application ﬁled by 3rd and 4th respondents. The petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to get himself impleaded as a party to the suit and get the interim application expedited. __________ 30-10-2008 rkk