sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18973 of 2008 Between: Smt. Dr.Sushma, W/o. Dr.Thakur Hammer Singh, R/o. Plot No.2, Siripuri Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad-15 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Deputy commissiner, Serilingampally,Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its commissiner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Attapur, R.R.District. 4 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Vice Chairman, Besides City Civil Court, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not renewing the building permission vide proceedings No.g- 649/BP/601/97 dt. 29-04-1997 accorded to the petitioner in respect of her plot No.136, admeasuring 1000sq.yards, covered by Sy.No.44/1, situated at Miyapur Village, R.R.District, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 17- 03-2008 and renew the building permission in respect of her said plot, in the light of the Order dated 02.03.2007 passed in WP.NO.3973/2007, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SHIV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18973 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is ﬁled by Smt. Dr. Sushma with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally-1st respondent in not renewing the building permission vide proceedings No. G-649/BP/601/97, dated 29-04-1997, accorded to her in respect of plot NO. 136, admeasuring 1000 square yards, covered by Sy.No.44/1, situated at Miyapur villae, Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner claims that she purchased plot NO. 136, admeasuring 1000 square yards comprising Survey NO. 44/1, situated at Miyapur village under registered sale deed dated 14-5-1980 from M/s Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Hyderabad. The petitioner applied for building permission and thereupon the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-2nd respondent has granted permission vide Proceedings No. G-649/BP/601/97, dated 29-4-1997. The permission was valid up to 28-4-1998. She could not commence the construction within the said period and therefore the period allowed to her for commencement of construction expired. She applied for renewal of the building permission on 17-2-2008. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received said application, but no orders have been passed on the said application. Hence, this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for consideration, Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned standing counsel of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of respondents NO.1 and 2, and Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned standing counsel of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority received notice on behalf of the respondents NO.4 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents NO.1,2 and 4. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 12861 of 2007 (U.V.K. Subba Rao Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad) in W.P.No. 1833 of 2008 (J.V. Ramapathi Rao and others Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and two others). 6. Indisputably no injunction is subsisting against the petitioner or her vendor society. When similarly situated persons approached this Court, their writ petition came to be allowed directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the building permission application filed by them. 7. Therefore, in the absence of any legal bar for granting building permission subject to the petitioner satisfying the requirements of Section 428 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 the petitioner is entitled to grant of building permission. However, in the event of LGC case which is pending before the Special Court being decided against her, the petitioner shall not claim equities or compensation for cost of the building constructed by her. The respondents shall accordingly consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of the building permission already granted. 8. With the above observation this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 2nd September, 2008. Note : C.C. in a week B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18973 OF 2008 2nd September,2008.