IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27067 of 2007 Between: Smt. K. Mamatha W/o K. Anil Kumar R/o 1-7-495/18/1, Zamisthampur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant City Planner, TownPlanning Section, Circle No. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an writ, order or Direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent in not permitting the petitioner to go ahead with the construction in the premises bearing No. 1-7-495/18/1, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad on the premise that a complaint has been lodged by some 3rd party against the petitioner and in spite of representation dated 5- 12-2007 pending before the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting him to go ahead with the construction in the premises bearing No.1-7-495/18/1, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad on the premise that a complaint has been lodged by 3rd party, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be owner of house bearing No.1-7-495/18/1, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20-07-2006 from one Mrs.Mumtaz Begum vide document No.2788 of 2006 registered in Sub Registrar Office, Chikkadpally. The total extent of the land on which the said house was constructed is 50 sqare yards. He got the said house demolished and applied for permission for construction of ground plus first floor. The respondents granted permission for the said construction and the petitioner is constructing the house as per the sanctioned plan. A complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner alleging that he has made illegal constructions by encroaching the road portion. Thereupon, the 1st respondent issued a letter vide Lr.NO.86/ACP/Committee/TPS/GHMC/2007 dated 30.10.2007 directing the petitioner to submit a copy of the legal ownership and sanctioned plan for verification within three days. The petitioner gave an explanation on 1.11.2007 stating that he had submitted all the documents with plan to the 1st respondent for approval. Later after obtaining the approval from the 1st respondent, he started construction as per the sanctioned plan leaving necessary set backs. According to the petitioner, the respondents are interfering with his construction and therefore, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proceeded with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and therefore, the respondents have no right to interfere with the constructions made by him. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents submits that the construction is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and it made the respondents to interfere with the construction. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner encroached the road portion and put up construction and therefore, 1st and 2nd respondents have to take necessary action for removal of the encroachments made on the road portion. While ordering notice before admission, the respondents were directed not to interfere with the construction, provided the petitioner is making constructions in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents stated before the Court that the respondents would not interfere with the construction, if it is in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the construction, provided the petitioner is making constructions in accordance with the sanctioned plan. If any deviations are there, it is open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with law. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. __________ 15-07-2008 rkk