IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18282 of 1999 Between: 1 J.satyamma (died) per LRs W/o Veeraiah H.No.1-2-388, Domalguda Hyderabad 2 J. Damodar S/o. late J. Satyamma H.No. 1-2-388, Domalguda, Hyderabad 3 J. Bhagyamma D/o. late J. Satyamma H.No. 1-2-388, Domalguda, Hyderabad 4 J. Pushpa D/o. late J. Satyamma H.No. 1-2-388, Domalguda, Hyderabad Petitioners 2to4 brought on record as LRs of deceased petitioner as per court order dt. 1-8-2005 in WPMP 16507 of 2003 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Principal secretary to Govt Municipal Adminstartion and Urban Devlp Dept Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner MCH Hyderabad 3 The Asst City Planner Municipal Corporation Hyderabad Circle No.3, Abids Hyderabad .....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 May be pleased to directing the respondents herein to accord permission in respect of H.No.1-2-388 , Domalguda , Hyderabad for Construction in accordance with the plan enclosed by declaring the order Dt: 4-9-98 as illegal , arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18282 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the memo dated 04.09.1998 rejecting to grant building permission in respect of H.No.1-2-388, Domalaguda, Hyderabad. Petitioner states that he made an application seeking permission for making additional constructions and changing roof in respect of H.No.1-2-388, Domalaguda, Hyderabad. By the impugned order dated 04.09.1998, the claim of the petitioner to relax the zoning regulations/building rules of laying R.C.C. roof on the existing walls was rejected. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the respondents had rejected the request of the petitioner to lay roof on the existing structures as they were constructed in the year 1936 with bricks and mud and as such, it would not take the load of the R.C.C. roof and subsequently, the petitioner is said to have applied for relaxation of zoning regulations/buildings rules, which was rejected by the impugned order. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as permission was granted in 1936, the zoning regulations/buildings rules, which were in force at that point of time are to be applied. However, it is difficult to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As the petitioner is seeking permission now, the zoning regulations/buildings rules in force as on date would apply for the purpose of granting permission to the premises of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Government in rejecting the application of the petitioner for relaxing the zoning regulations. Leaving it open to the petitioner to make fresh application for grant of building permission, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Dt:20.04.2009 usd