THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 19023 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. With their consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition has been instituted seeking directions to the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for permission for construction of a building comprising of ground + 1st floor on Plot No. 8/15 and 16 situated at A.P. Housing Board Colony, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri K.Ashok Kumar, Assistant City Planner, on behalf of the respondent, it is pointed out that the writ petitioner has produced a Xerox copy of the challan issued by the respondent bearing No050150723, dated 3.1.2006 remitting in all a sum fo Rs.14,685/-. It was stated in para (2) that the building plan file number is not indicated therein and the building applications register pertaining to the year 2006, when verified it was noticed that no such building application was received on 3.1.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Letter No. 6236/34/Plg/HUDA/2006, dated 21.9.2006 wherein the HUDA has informed the writ petitioner that her application for approval of building permission has been scrutinized and the same was forwarded to the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality vide Office Letter No. 6236/P4/Plg/H/2006 of the HUDA, for taking necessary further action in the matter. It is therefore obvious that the application submitted by the writ petitioner seeking permission for construction of the building has been scrutinized by the HUDA at the first instance and the same was forwarded to Kukatpally Municipality, as it was existing then on 21.9.2006. The respondent is therefore not justified in rejecting the request of the writ petitioner, on the ground that no such application is made. However, in view of the subsequent developments such as abolition of Kukatpally Municipality and merging the said local body into Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), it would only be appropriate to direct the respondent herein to trace out the building permission application said to have been forwarded to it by the HUDA through their Letter No. 6236/P4/Plg/HUDA/ 2006, dated 21.9.2006 and take action considered appropriate and necessary thereon. But, however, for any reason, if the said application could not be immediately traced, the respondent may call upon the petitioner to produce a copy thereof or apply afresh seeking for permission of construction of a building. However, the respondent will not demand the building fee afresh provided the amount which has already been paid by the writ petitioner, as is evidenced from the Xerox copy of the receipt furnished by her in a sum of Rs.14,685/- is sufficient for sanctioning the plan submitted. It is also open to the petitioner to produce any receipts, challans or any other tangible proof to vouch for the factum of payment of money to the respondent which amount will be given credit to for sanction of building permissions. The respondent can only seek payment of differential amount, if any. Since the sub-division of Plot No.7 and 8 has already been approved by the HUDA, the respondent may consider the application of the writ petitioner for construction of the building and grant the necessary permission within a maximum period of 30 days. Till such time the respondent grants the necessary building permission, the petitioner shall not commence construction of the building. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Knk 8th September 2010