HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.10793 of 2009 Date : 19-8-2011 Between: Smt.G.Narsamma w/o.Ramanjaneyulu .. Petitioner And Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Anantapur, Anantapur District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao for Sri K.Madhava The court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in threatening to demolish the structures raised in open space of L.P.No.323/81 in S.No.59/A of Ram Nagar, Anantapur despite submitting the plan by the petitioner and application with the signature of the Municipal Licensed Surveyor pursuant to endorsement dated 4-5-2009 in L.Dis.No.920/2009-G2, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner developed a layout and on a site forming part of such layout, he proposed to construct a building. Accordingly, he made an application on 28-4-2009 to respondent No.1 for grant of building permission. By endorsement dated 4-5-2009, respondent No.1 returned the application of the petitioner with the direction to fulfill two conditions, namely, (i) to submit blue print plan along with the signature of the Mandal Licenced Surveyor and (ii) to submit building calculation sheet along with fees. The petitioner is stated to have resubmitted the application by fulfilling the above mentioned two conditions on the same day. In the meantime, respondent No.1 issued notice under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") to remove the columns raised without getting the building plan sanctioned. This notice is questioned in the Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner of respondent No.1-Corporation, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner’s application dated 28-4-2009 for sanction of building plan was returned on 4-5-2009 and that the plan resubmitted by the petitioner was again returned by stating that the site falls in the layout open space of L.P.No.323/81. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner controverting the above averment. I have heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sashidharan Nair, representing respondent No.1-Corporation and Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao learned counsel representing Sri K.Mahadeva, learned counsel for respondent No.2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that if the site in question falls in the open space of the layout, the petitioner is not entitled to raise construction therein. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 shall be free to take action against the construction raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be free to approach respondent No.1, within a period of two weeks from today, with documentary proof to show that the plot over which the building is sought to be constructed/constructed forms part of proper layout and that he is entitled to raise construction over such plot according to the relevant provisions of the Act. If respondent No.1 is satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation, no action for demolition of the existing building shall be taken. Conversely, respondent No.1 shall be free to take action according to law if it is found that the site in question forms part of the open space. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, interim order dated 3-6-2009 is vacated and WPMP No.13869/2009 and WVMP No.3034 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 19-8-2011 AM