IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22222 of 2001 Between: B.Laxminarayana S/o. Narsaiah R/o. H.No.5-4-1, Subashnagar, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep by its Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Municipal Commissioner Sricilla Municipality, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 3 Ch.Venkateswarlu, S/o Sundaraiah R/o. H.No.1-1-41, Dhobi Gally, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in allowing the 3rd respondent to make construction in contravention of the building regulations there by contravening of A.P. Municipalities Act and Rules made there under by issuing Memo dt.21.12.98 without hearing the petition and without even taking into consideration, the resolution of the Municipal Council dt.16.9.95 and Consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to take action in respect of the construction made by the 3rd Respondent in premises bearing No.7-3-42 & 43, Vimal Talkies Road, Sircilla to see that the said construction is as per the building regulations prescribed in schedule-III of the A.P. Municipalities Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BETHI.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks directions by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in allowing the constructions by the third respondent in the premises bearing Nos.7- 3-42 & 43, situated at Vimal Talkies Road, Sircilla, as illegal and the same is in contravention of the Building Regulations. 2. The father of the third respondent, by name, Sundaraiah, had purchased a piece of land in the premises bearing Nos. 7-3-42 & 43 situated at Vimal Talkies Road, Sircilla and purchased another piece of land in the name of the third respondent in Sircilla town. The third respondent herein made an application for grant of building permission. Though the said application was initially rejected, after Sircilla was notified as Municipality, pursuant to the resolution of the municipal council, permission was granted. For Sircilla town, there was no Master Plan and Road Development Plan earlier, but, subsequently, a plan was prepared for road development in R.D. Plan No.7/93 showing the road in front of Vimal Talkies at 24 feet width. The said plan was approved as proposed and after approval of the Road Development Plan No.7/93, municipal council has resolved to adopt the said road Development Plan vide Resolution No.20, dated 21-08-1993. The permission, which is granted to the third respondent, is in accordance with the Road Development Plan No.7/93. But, on the ground that there was a proposal for the road width to 33 feet, the petitioner had been making the representations not to allow the third respondent to make construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Initially, he approached the Government and obtained the interim orders, which were vacated subsequently. Thereafter, he also approached the institution of Lokayukta by filing a complaint, which was also dismissed subsequently. Thereafter, he filed this Writ Petition. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Commissioner on behalf of the second respondent-municipality. In the detailed counter-affidavit filed, it is stated that the father of the third respondent has left a piece of land, which was purchased by him, for the purpose of road. Further, it is also stated that Road Development Plan No.7/93 was approved for 24 feet only and the permission is granted pursuant to resolution of municipal council based on approval of Road Development Plan No.7/93, which was adopted by the municipal council vide resolution No.20, dated 21-08-1993. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner, it is categorically stated that the constructions made by the third respondent are not in violation of the Rules and neither there is any inconvenience to public nor traffic is jamming in the area. Further, with regard to locus standi of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is a resident of the colony, by name, Subhashnagar and not having any property and in no way he is inconvenienced by virtue of the construction of the building by the third respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-municipality and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. On record, the only grievance of the petitioner is that the constructions are made by the third respondent by encroaching on the road margin. He makes such a submission based on the proposal of the municipality. It is to be noted that after formation of the municipality, Road Development Plan was prepared, which was sent for approval by the competent authority and the competent authority has approved the Road Development Plan vide R.D. Plan No.7/93 by showing the road width as 24 feet only. Though there was a resolution by the municipality proposing the road for 33 feet, at no point of time the road was approved for 33 feet. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any approval of road width to 33 feet, it cannot be said that the third respondent encroached on the road portion and constructed the building. In any event, it is to be noted that the petitioner is not having any property in the land in question and is a resident of a colony, by name, Subhashnagar. Further, this Writ Petition is also not filed by way of Public Interest Litigation. From the events stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner, it is clear that for extraneous considerations, this Writ Petition is filed to harass the third respondent, in the absence of any violation in the construction made by the third respondent. Though the third respondent obtained permission from the competent authority and made construction in accordance with rules, based on the proposal of the municipality for the proposed road width of 33 feet, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition alleging encroachment. As much as road widening is not approved by the competent authority, accepting for 33 feet road as proposed by the municipality, it cannot be said that the third respondent made construction by encroaching on the road portion. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is filed without any basis and by making series of complaints before the Government, Lokayukta and this Court. It is clear that the petitioner is harassing the third respondent though constructions are made by him in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 05th June, 2009. skmr