THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1781 of 2008 Date:28.10.2009 Between: Smt. Gandi Devika and another. ..Petitioners and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another.. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1781 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners purchased a plot No.86/A/4 admeasuring 640 sq. yards in survey No.176 of Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District. They submitted an application to the Urban Development Authority as well as the respondent Corporation for sanction of permission to construct residential apartment. Permission was accorded by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 14.09.2007. The petitioners stated that when construction was in progress, the officials of the first respondent started interfering. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to restrain the respondents from interfering with the construction. The second respondent – President of Maruthi Nagar Development Society, was impleaded subsequently. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for the first respondent and Sri K.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the second respondent. The plot purchased by the petitioners, at one point of time, was treated as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. On a representation made by the second respondent, it is said to have been earmarked for park through orders passed by the District Collector on 13.03.2002. However, the Special Officer and Competent Authority for Urban Land Ceiling declared the same to be non-surplus land. Taking note of the same, the District Collector himself revised his orders and issued fresh orders on 20.08.2008 The first respondent has accorded permission to the petitioners to make construction over the plot on being satisfied that they complied with the conditions stipulated therefor. As long as the permission subsists the right of the petitioners to construct building in accordance with the same cannot be interfered. In case the petitioners are found to have deviated from the sanctioned plan, the first respondent can issue notices pointing out such deviation. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed not to interfere with the construction undertaken by the petitioners as long as it is in accordance with the sanctioned plan. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 28th October, 2009 GHN