THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.13124 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the premises bearing No.5-4-130 situated at Pasari Ward, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. He states that respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are his adjacent house owners, obtained permission for construction of a new building consisting of stilt + two floors by demolishing the old building and instead of commencing the construction work as per the approved plan, they started digging the earth below the ground level for construction of Cellar, which would result in damage to his house. Therefore, the petitioner claims to have made a complaint to the third respondent-Municipality, which in turn issued a notice, dated 11.06.2009, to respondent Nos.4 to 6 directing them stop the earth excavation for construction of Cellar. In spite of the same, as respondent Nos.4 to 6 are still proceeding with the earth excavation work, the petitioner claims to have made another complaint to the third respondent on 23.06.2009 and to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 24.06.2009 in this regard, but so far no action has been taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the present writ petition. This Court, while granting time to the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent and to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 to get instructions, on 10.07.2009 directed the third respondent to take further steps in accordance with law pursuant to the notice, dated 11.06.2009, forthwith. Subsequently, the third respondent-Municipality filed counter in the matter admitting that permission was granted by the third respondent-Municipality to respondent Nos.4 to 6 for construction of stilt + two floors in the subject premises, but in deviation to the same they excavated earth and raised columns for the purpose of constructing Cellar. That as soon as the same was brought to its notice, the third respondent issued notice, dated 11.06.2009, and got the construction work stopped. Before the third respondent could proceed further, the petitioner approached this Court. It is stated that in compliance of the interim directions of this Court, the third respondent issued another notice, dated 27.07.2009, and that as of now, no construction work is in progress. In view of the stand taken by the third respondent-Municipality in the counter, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that let there be a direction to the third respondent to take appropriate action in the matter, after considering the explanation, if any, to be submitted by respondent Nos.4 to 6, in accordance with law to prevent illegal constructions in the subject premises. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent- Municipality to consider the explanation, if any, submitted by respondent Nos.4 to 6 pursuant to the notice issued and take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:19.07.2010 VGB