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 Nos.19970 and 23923 of 2002 Between: Abdul Kareem S/o.Shaik Ahmed R/o.H.No.5-7-44, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The commissioner Municipal Council Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings No.UCR/2/C/2002, dt.19.9.2002 as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant building permission to the petitioner in plot No.5 as per the application dt. 16.7.2002 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RADHAKRISHNA WRIT PETITION No. 23923 of 2002 Between: Abdul Kareem S/o. Shaik Ahmed R/o. H.No. 5-7-44, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner Municipal Council, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent in issuing notice dt. 8.11.2002, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and setaside the same and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the construction of the petitioner in plot No. 5/A and 6/A in Sy.No.51 of Malreddypally, Tandur. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19970 and 23923 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these writ petitions as well as the parties are same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is the owner of plot Nos.5 and 6 admeasuring 178.5 sq. yards in Sy.No.51, situated at Malreddypally in ward No.2 of Tandur in Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased the said plots vide document No.2038/95 dated 13-10-1995 and document No.1204/2001 dated 03-05-2001 respectively. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent-municipality on 16-07- 2002 for grant of building permission and as there was no refusal to grant building permission within the statutory period, on the ground that there is a deemed sanction, he has proceeded with the construction with effect from 15-09-2002. At first instance, notice dated 19-09-2002 was issued in proceedings No.UCR/2/C/2002 directing the petitioner to dismantle the structures as they were raised without valid permission. The petitioner had questioned the said notice in W.P.No.19970 of 2002. During the pendency of the said writ petition, another notice dated 08-11-2002 was issued to the petitioner directing him not to proceed with the construction and therefore he has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.23923 of 2002. 3. Though these writ petitions are of the year 2002, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to application made by the petitioner, respondents have issued building permission vide proceedings No.C/664/2005 and his house was also assessed to property and he has been paying tax regularly from 2005-2006 onwards. 5. As much as, for the subject matter which is covered by the impugned notices, respondents have already issued proceedings No.C/664/2005 dated 14-10-2005, granting permission for construction in favour of the petitioner, the impugned notices do not survive and they are accordingly quashed. 6. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. April 20, 2009 Usd/MRR