HON’BLE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 25950 of 2006 Dated: 18-01-2008 Between: The Indian Institute of Architects (A.P.Chapter), represented by its Chairman, Secunderabad …Petitioner AND The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and others …Respondents O R D E R: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) A letter was addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court by the A.P. Chapter of the Indian Institute of Architects bringing to the notice of this Court that the old Gandhi Medical College situated in Hyderabad was notified at Sl.No. 22 as Grade-I Heritage structure and Lady Hydari Club, which is also situated in the same premises was also notified at Sl.No.70 as Grade-II B Heritage structure by virtue of the Government notification dated 23-3-1998. It was stated in the said letter that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had failed to protect the aforesaid premises and it was also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.7 was likely to put up some construction near the aforestated Heritage structure. The aforesaid letter was treated as a writ petition and notices were issued to the concerned authorities. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, the Special Government Pleader Sri Satya Prasad has appeared for the said authorities and has submitted that respondent No.7 has been given on lease certain area of land, which is in the vicinity of the aforestated Heritage structure. It has been submitted by him that respondent No.7, who has been given the area on lease is not likely to make any modification or change in the Heritage building, as he would not be authorized to enter the said premises. It has been submitted that due care has been taken by the Government authorities while leasing the land around the Heritage building to respondent No.7. Sri J.V.Suryanarayana, learned Advocate has appeared for respondent No.7, who has been given the land in question on lease. It has been submitted by him that the Heritage buildings are properly protected and respondent No.7 is not to put up any construction in violation of the regulations issued under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Area Development Act, 1975. In view of the above fact, it is clear that the proposed construction would not adversely affect the aforestated Heritage building. However for the sake of abundant caution, it is directed that the Managing Director of respondent No.7-company shall give an undertaking to the effect that no construction shall be put up on the land leased to respondent No.7 before the plan for the building is approved by respondent No.1-Corporation. In the undertaking, it shall also be stated that respondent No.7 or its officers shall not enter the heritage buildings and they shall be duly protected. The aforesaid undertaking shall be filed within two weeks from today. Copies of the undertaking shall also be given to respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. In view of the above direction given by this Court, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ T.MEENA KUMARI, J 18th January, 2008. Note: Issue copy by Tuesday /B.O/ GRR