HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3920 OF 2008 Date : 22.12.2009 Between: G.Devanandam Samuel. …… Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner & others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3920 OF 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in demolishing the illegal constructions made by respondent No.3 in the premises bearing H.No. 10-5-76/18, situated at Tukaramgate, Lallaguda, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that originally, the petitioner’s mother, by name, Smt. G.V.Hemalatha, was the owner and possessor of the above-mentioned house. Petitioner claims the said property by virtue of a Gift Deed, dated 07.10.1968, executed by his mother and also the sale affected by his brother in favour of his wife. It is further stated that subsequently, an extent of 142.1 square yards of land was sold to the 3rd respondent by the wife of the petitioner, wherein, the 3rd respondent has started constructions. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is making constructions without leaving any set-backs as per the approved plan, and that, inspite of the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner in this regard, no steps have been taken by respondents 1 and 2 for removal of the constructions, which are made in deviation to the approved plan. 3. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle VII of Central Zone of the 1st respondent-Corporation. In the counter, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the 3rd respondent has obtained building permission for construction of ground and first floor, vide permit No.148/31, dated 09.04.2007, in the file bearing No.545/TP/MCH/SD/B6/2007. It is further stated that on noticing that the 3rd respondent has made constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan, they have already issued a show cause notice, dated 03.03.2008, under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, for removal of such unauthorised constructions, and further steps will be taken in accordance with law. 4. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, and as evident from the counter affidavit that respondents 1 and 2 have already issued show cause notice, dated 03.03.2008, for removal of the unauthorised constructions made by the 3rd respondent, no further directions can be given by this Court for removal of such unauthorised constructions. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd December 2009 RRB