IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22823 of 2007 Between: Namala Venkata Subba Rao, S/o.Rama Chandra Rao, R/o.H.No.16-36-1, Sambha Murthy Nagar, Kakinada,E.G Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation Of Kakinada, Rep.by its Commissioner, Kakinada,E.G Dist 2 The Town Planning Officer, Municipal Corporation Of Kakinada E.G Dist 3 Smt.Jagarapu Venkata Jostna, W/o.Sir Anand Kumar, H.No.86-26-13/1, New V.L.Puram, Tilak Road, Rajahmundry,E.G Dist 4 Sri Adireddi Srinivas, S/o.Sri Appa Rao, H.No.86-26/13/1, NEw V.L.Puram,Tilak Road,Rajahmundry, E.G Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1and 2 to enquire and initiate necessary action on the representation dt.01-10-2007 filed by the petitioner with regard to illegal constitutions being made by the respondents 3 and 4 in the premises of D.No.54-6-14/1, Jaganathapuram, V.M.Junction, Kakinada and further direct the respondents 1and 2 to ensure that the said building complies with statutory requirements and to stop the illegal construction in the premises of D.No.54-6-14/1, Jaganathapuram, V.M junction, Kakinada and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 pursuant to his representation dated 01-10-2007 with regard to the illegal constructions being made by them in premises bearing door No. 54-6-14/1, Jaganathapuram, V.M. Junction, Kakinada. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have purchased open site admeasuring about 400 square yards and started making construction and they have also dug the earth to an extent of three meters so as to construct cellar without having any permission from the competent authority. It is stated that though the petitioner submitted his representation dated 01-10-2007 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 complaining about the illegal construction of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, no action is being taken for removal of such illegal construction. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Kakinada, it is stated that on 24-03-2007, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted an application seeking permission for approval of the plan for construction of stilt + ground floor, first floor and second floor for the purpose of office complex. It is stated that on receipt of the said application, respondent No. 1 forwarded the same to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for technical approval and on receipt of the technical approval, permission was granted in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to construct stilt, ground and two upper floors vide proceedings in B.A No. 246-07, dated 03-05-2007. It is stated that after obtaining the approval, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have started construction of the building. It is also stated that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have duly complied with condition No. 19 imposed in the permission and executed registered gift deed for the areas covered under the said condition. It is also stated that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have started construction by reserving proper set backs as approved in the plan. It is further averred that before grant of permission, the authorities have enquired about the title of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and it came to light that suit O.S No. 277 of 1984 filed by the vendors of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking eviction of the petitioner’s father from the property in question was decreed in their favour and the appeal filed by the petitioner’s father also ended in dismissal. It is contended by Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 started construction illegally even prior to the grant of permission and the same is evident from the caveat application filed by them before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada on 04-04-2007. However, permission was granted on 01-05-2007. It is to be noticed that this writ petition was filed on 25-10-2007 alleging that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are making constructions without any due permission from the competent authority and that they have also dug the earth to the extent of three meters depth so as to construct cellar. However, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that there is a valid permission in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for construction of stilt, ground + two floors, for office complex. It is also evident from the counter that the constructions are being made as per the sanctioned plan by maintaining proper set backs and that the allegation of the petitioner that they constructed cellar is false and that the earth was dug only for the purpose of foundations as per the sanctioned plan. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that there is a valid permission in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for construction of the building in question and the constructions are being made by maintaining setbacks as mentioned in the permission. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the constructions are either illegal or without any permission as pleaded by the petitioner. From the averments made in the counter, it appears that as the father of the petitioner suffered a decree in the hands of the father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, only with an oblique motive, this writ petition is filed with false allegations. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29-04-2009 ks