THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.25362 OF 2011 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not initiating action against the illegal constructions being undertaken by respondent No.7 in premises No.11- 1-69, LIG II/31, A.P.H.B. Colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad District in exercise of their statutory duty under the provisions of the A.P.Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 read with Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to demolish the illegal constructions made by respondent No.7 in the said premises. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of premises bearing H.No.11-1-70, LIG II/30, A.P.H.B. Colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad District. Respondent No.7 purchased the house bearing No.11-1-69, LIG 2/31, A.P.H.B. Colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad District from its original allottee. The house of respondent No.7 is situated at northern side of the petitioner’s house. After purchase, respondent No.7 completely demolished the earlier structure and started raising illegal constructions without maintaining any set backs. Therefore, the petitioner approached respondent No.7 and requested to maintain the set backs. Without adhering to the request of the petitioner, respondent No.7 was proceeding with the constructions adjoining/attaching the wall of the petitioner’s house. So, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 on 19.11.2009 making a representation requesting to inspect the premises of respondent No.7 and take appropriate action against the illegal constructions but no suitable action has been taken and hence, he ﬁled the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without leaving set backs, respondent No.7 is making constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan and inspite of brining the same to the notice of respondent Nos.1 to 4, they are not taking any action and hence, he prays to give a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take action against respondent No.7. 4. Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that respondent Nos.2 to 4 would take appropriate decision if the constructions made by respondent No.7 are contrary to the sanctioned plan after giving a reasonable opportunity to respondent No.7, and hence, he prays to dispose of the writ petition with such a direction. 5. Inspite of service, respondent No.7 has not appeared before this Court. The allegations in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition remained unchallenged. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.7 is making constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan and also without leaving set backs, as required under building bye-laws. A builder cannot be permitted to construct a house contrary to the sanctioned plan. Therefore, it is for respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take appropriate decision as to whether the building being constructed by respondent No.7 is in accordance with the plan approved by the Municipal Corporation or not. For that purpose, anyone of respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall visit the premises in question and if there are any deviations as against the sanctioned plan and if the set backs are contrary to the building rules, then they shall issue a notice to respondent No.7 calling for her explanation and then, take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ​ _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 03rd November, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.25362 OF 2011 Date:03.11.2011 AMD