THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.22461 OF 2009 DATED:02.11.2011 Between: A. Krishna Reddy … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, near Tank Bund Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.22461 OF 2009 ORDER: 1) This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action on the representation of the petitioner dt.10.8.2009, with regard to the illegal constructions made by the third respondent, contrary to the sanctioned plan and conditions thereon, in the house bearing Municipal No.6-1-283 (B/28), CIB Quarters, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Building Regulations under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), and for consequential directions. 2) The petitioner stated in his affidavit that he and his sister are absolute owners and possessors of the houses bearing Municipal Nos.6-1-284 (B/29) and 6-1-282 (B/27), Khairatabad, Hyderabad, respectively, whereas the third respondent is owner and possessor of the house bearing Municipal No.6-1-283 (B/28), which is situated in between the said houses of the petitioner and his sister. In December 2003, the third respondent demolished her old house and made a new construction thereon deviating from the sanctioned plan and in spite of a direction given against her in a civil suit, she continued the illegal constructions. Therefore, the respondent – Corporation issued a final notice under Section 452 of the Act. Questioning the same, the third respondent filed W.P. No.4521 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court on 10.3.2004 observing that the respondent – Corporation is entitled to get the deviated construction demolished, at the cost of the third respondent herein. In spite of the specific direction, as the third respondent continued the illegal constructions, the petitioner made a representation dt.10.8.2009 to the first respondent complaining the illegal constructions made by the third respondent deviating from the sanctioned plan. As no action was taken on the representation of the petitioner, present writ petition is filed. 3) Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the first respondent – Corporation granted permission to third respondent vide permit No.59/31 of 2003 for construction a building. When action was initiated by the Corporation against the third respondent for violation of the conditions in making the construction, she filed O.S. No.1033 of 2004 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained an interim order. However, in the said interim order, the Corporation was given liberty to initiate action against the third respondent for the deviations from the sanctioned plan. Hence, the Corporation issued notice under Section 452 of the Act to the third respondent. Challenging the same, the third respondent filed W.P. No.4521 of 2004 and the same was disposed of by this court on 10.3.2004 observing that the respondent – Corporation is entitled to get the deviated construction demolished at the cost of the third respondent. Ultimately, it was found that the third respondent constructed steps on the side of the road and the same were removed by the Corporation. So far as the allegation that the third respondent opened windows towards the house of the petitioner, as it relates to easementary rights of the parties the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court. It is further stated that since the application of the third respondent, made under Building Penalization Scheme (BPS), for regularization of deviations and unauthorized construction is pending consideration, further action can be initiated only after disposal of the said application. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application filed by the third respondent under BPS is in respect of constructions made contrary to the plan sanctioned in the year 2003, but she also made constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan after 2008, and therefore, the respondent Corporation has to take a decision in accordance with law for demolition of the construction made by the third respondent contrary to the sanctioned plan. 5) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the representation of the petitioner dt.10.8.2009 would be considered by the respondents after disposal of the application filed by the third respondent under BPS. 6) There cannot be any dispute that a person cannot construct a building contrary to the sanctioned plan. It is the duty of the respondent - Corporation to see that no one is permitted to raise constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan. 7) Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 shall inspect the premises in question and verify whether there are any deviations in the construction made by the third respondent contrary to the sanctioned plan and within parameters of the regularizations made under G.O. Ms.No.901, Municipal Administration, dt.31.12.2007, and thereafter follow the procedure contemplated under the Act, for taking further action. The first respondent shall also take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner dt.10.8.2009 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8) With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ K.C. BHANU, J 02.11.2011 bnr