THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10864 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent in issuing notice No.G1/TPS-1/720/2008, dated 25.10.2011 directing the petitioner to stop or stay erection of the building or execution of further construction of the building and calling upon to show cause in ten days, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction of the petitioner in Plot No.44 and 44-A in Survey Nos.459 and 460 of Sriramnagar Housing Colony of Keesara Mandal, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows: The petitioner is absolute owner of the land in an extent of 1759 square yards in Survey Nos. 459 and 460 situated in block no.6, Sriramnagar Housing Colony, Keesara Mandal of Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, which is part and parcel of Sriramanagar Housing Colony numbered as Plot Nos. 44 and 44-A. Originally, the said land was purchased by father of the petitioner in the year 1974 and thereafter he gifted it to the petitioner by way of gift settlement deed dated 14.8.2008, and since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Prior to the gift, father of petitioner made an application to the second respondent seeking regularization of unauthorized plots under L.R.S. scheme, and the plots were regularized vide proceedings No.LRS/4255/CR-1 East Zone/GHMC/2008, dated 12.1.2009 by the second respondent. Her father also paid Rs.4,60,820/- for regularization. The petitioner made an application dated 21.12.2010, along with required documents and plan, to the fourth respondent seeking permission for construction of a building, and vide proceedings No.1265/HO/EZ/Cir.-1/2010, dated 16.3.2011, third respondent granted permission for construction, whereunder it was stipulated that the petitioner shall commence the construction before 15.3.2012 and complete it before 15.3.2014. The petitioner secured loans from Banks and others and dumped material spending huge amounts. But, the fourth respondent issued impugned proceedings directing the petitioner to stop the construction or stay the erection of the building or execution of further construction of the building for a period of 20 days calling upon her to show cause in writing as to why regularization proceedings dated 12.1.2009 and subsequent building permission dated 16.3.2011 should not be cancelled. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the sole ground of filing of some civil suit, which was dismissed, the respondents issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to stop the construction which is nothing but an arbitrary action on the part of the respondent, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the impugned order is only a show-cause notice calling for explanation of the petitioner, for which she had already given explanation, and so, an appropriate decision has to be taken by the petitioner in accordance with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner claims that she is absolute owner of the property in question having derived the same by way of a gift deed from her father, who purchased the said property from his vendor through a registered sale deed in the year 1974. She made an application for construction of the building which was sanctioned and in pursuance of the sanctioned plan, the petitioner is making constructions. While the matter stood thus, the respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to stop the construction for the reason of filing of civil suit, which is dismissed, relating to the subject matter of the property. That cannot be a ground for stopping the constructions being made by the petitioner. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the Commissioner has to take appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the rules and Bye- laws made thereunder whether the constructions are being made in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not. 6. Subject matter in the dismissed suit is nothing to do with the site of the petitioner and hence he has got every right to proceed with the construction and asking the petitioner to stop the further construction is nothing but pre-concluding the matter. Therefore, the respondent corporation has no authority to stop further constructions that will be made by the petitioner in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Ultimately, if the Commissioner finds that the petitioner has no right, then he can take appropriate action as per law. 7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by the respondent no.3 and explanation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules and Bye-laws made thereunder within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner can further proceed with the construction. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 1.11.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10864 OF 2011 1.11.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10864 OF 2011 DATED 1.11.2011 Between: …Petitioner And …Respondents 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner__ contended that for the purpose of road widening, an extent of 781.__ square yards of site of the petitioner was taken away by the VUDA___ and afater taking the money, they have given 2647.15 square yards in stead of 3428.60 square yards and therefore there is short fall of 781.45 square yards of the land of the petitioner, inspite of the fact that VUDA collected entire value of the entire land from the petitioner; that the G.O. RT No.348, dated 14.3.2007 was issued by the Government whereunder the Government considered the request of the petitioner to the extent of