IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17419 of 2008 Between: Bhavani Enclave Residents Welfare Society a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, Having Registration No.185 of 2007 Represented by its President Mr.Raghunandan Tiwari, S/o. Mr.Ramprasad, Having its Office at H.No. 8-2-684/11/4, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Having its Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Zonal Commissioner of Cetral Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 Dr.Srinivas, Bhavani Enclave, Road no. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to 2 here to take the necessary and immediate action as per Law to prevent the illegal construction of the Respondent No.3 in the property bearing M.No.8-2-684/1/8, Bhavani Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, and also to demolish the illegal construction which was already out in the said property bearing M.No. 8-2-684/11/1, 8-2-684/1/8, Bhavani Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE, Standing Counsel for GHMC. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD, & V.SRIDHAR The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner is a Welfare Society of Bhavani Enclave Residents registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is represented by its President Mr.Raghunandan Tiwari. The then Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (now G.H.M.C.) approved the layout in respect of Survey no.129/76 in the year 1996. All the plots in the layout have been earmarked for residential purpose. Dr.Srinivas-3rd respondent is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal No.8-2-684/11/1, 8-2-684/1/8, Bhavani Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. He obtained permission for construction of a residential building. It is the grievance of the petitioner Society that the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the construction for housing a hospital. It is the further grievance of the petitioner Society that the 3rd respondent encroached on the footpath and road while constructing the hospital on the premises owned by him. The petitioner Society lodged a complaint with the Zonal Commissioner of Central Zone, GHMC, Khairtabad, Hyderabad-2nd respondent on 06.04.2008. There being no action on the complaint lodged, the petitioner-Society approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 11.08.2008. Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel of GHMC received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit. K.V.Ranga Raju, Asst. City Planner, Circle No.X, GHMC, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter- affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the 3rd respondent commenced construction after obtaining permission. Permission granted to the 3rd respondent is in respect of stilt for parking, ground + two upper floors. In the process of construction, certain deviations have been made by the 3rd respondent in the rear and sides. The said deviations came to be removed at the initial stage. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent erected girders. The respondents Corporation is taking necessary steps for removing the said girders. But, the 3rd respondent has not encroached any pavement or road on any side. The construction made by the 3rd respondent is within the plot area without any violation of the sanctioned plan except the set backs violation for which action has been initiated. 4. The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that the building is being constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The Municipal Authorities have inspected the premises and found that the entire construction is as per the sanctioned plan. A show-cause notice under Section 452(2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act came to be issued for which he submitted an explanation. It is specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that the construction is being made for residential purpose and not for a hospital. For better appreciation, I may refer para.4 of the counter- affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “4. I respectfully submit that with reference to paras.4 to 7, that the allegations made in these paras are totally incorrect. I submit that I constructed the house only after obtaining necessary permission from the 1st respondent and as per the sanctioned plan only, I constructed the said house. I have not encroached any public footpath or any road as stated by the petitioner. I maintained the required set backs in constructing the house and the municipal authorities have inspected my construction. The petitioner made allegation that one Mr.Mahesh Baldewa made a complaint to the society and basing on the said complaint, the petitioner filed this writ petition but actually the said Mahesh Baldewa is my neighbour and he constructed his house and there are so many deviations in that construction and he has not left the required set backs in his construction and to cover his mistakes he is throwing allegations against me and causing mental agony and financial loss. The said Mahesh Baldewa also filed a suit in O.S.No.2527 of 2008 before the Hon’ble IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunction and demolition of structure. I filed counter in the said suit and the matter is posted for enquiry and hearing. I submit that at the instance of Sri Mahesh Baldewa, the petitioner filed this writ petition to harass me. Subsequent to filing of this writ petition, the petitioner society called me and held a meeting with the members of the society. I submitted a detailed explanation before the society and they have satisfied with my explanation and issued a letter to me stating that they will withdraw this writ petition on 16.190.2008.” 5. When this Writ Petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner Society that the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the construction of a hospital in a residential area. Whereas, it is the case of the 3rd respondent that he is constructing the building for residential purpose and the municipal authorities inspected the premises and found that the constructions are in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 8. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is explicit that the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the construction of a house for residential purpose. Certain deviations have been noticed and the deviated portion came to be demolished by the respondents 1 and 2. It is apparent from the counter-affidavit of the respondents 1 and 2 that the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan except erecting girders, for which the respondents 1 and 2 undertook to initiate necessary action. 9. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner Society that the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the construction of a hospital in a residential area. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pursue the proceedings initiated with regard to removal of girders said to have been erected by the 3rd respondent. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th November, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}