HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.18813 of 2011 Date : 28-9-2011 Between : Renu Vasudev Sanjani and others .. Petitioners and The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others Counsel for petitioners : Sri Deepak Misra Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms.V. Jayasree for Sri C. Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Sri K.R. Sashidharan Nair The Court made the following: ORDER: Feeling aggrieved by notice in Lr.No.15244/TPS/C- 18/NZ/GHMC 2010-2011 dated 22-6-2011 issued under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of premises bearing No.1-8-285 & 286, Sindhi colony, Secunderabad, comprising ground and first floors with R.C.C. roofs. Petitioner No.1 applied for building permission for construction of two additional floors i.e., 2nd and 3rd floors and obtained permission vide permit No.262/10, dated 20-11-2010. After securing the permission, petitioner No.1 was advised by the consultant architects to rest the additional floors on the new columns to be raised from the ground as the strength of the building is not sufficient to bear the weight of the two additional floors on the existing structure. Accordingly, when petitioner No.1 started construction, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 22-6-2011 calling upon her to submit the sanctioned plan and stop the construction. Accordingly, the sanctioned plan was submitted and upon a perusal of the same, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanation within seven days. On 4-7-2011, the petitioners were served with a notice directing them to remove the deviations within 24 hours. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners have obtained the building permission for construction of the 2nd and the 3rd floors over the existing cellar, ground and the first floors of residential building; that they have started raising R.C.C. columns contrary to the sanctioned plan; that therefore a notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued and that thereafter, the impugned notice under Section 636 of the Act was issued. Having considered the respective pleadings, this court has called for the inspection report from the Assistant City Planner, Circle-18, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, he has submitted a report wherein it is stated that there is a short-fall in the set-backs on all sides varying between 0.49 Mts. and 3.00 Mts. Sri Deepak Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the sketch filed by the Assistant City Planner shows that on the ground floor, the set-backs are in conformity with the building regulations and the sanctioned plan at all places, except where the pillars have been raised. He however conceded that since the roofs of the additional floors which are under construction are rested on the pillars in those floors, the open spaces as required under the building regulations will not be maintained. He also fairly conceded that to the said extent there is deviation from the approved plan even on the proposed 2nd and the 3rd floors. Petitioner No.1 filed an affidavit stating that except at the pillar portions in the ground floor, there is no short-fall in the set-backs and that no construction will be made projecting beyond the pillars. In my opinion, the petitioners shall conform construction to the sanctioned plan and if for any reason the same is not possible, the only course left open is to approach respondent No.1 with an application for modification of the sanctioned plan under Section 433 of the Act. The petitioners have in fact pleaded that such an application is filed and in support thereof, a copy of the application made to respondent No.1, is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the building is an old one which cannot bear the weight of two additional floors, raising pillars in deviation of the sanctioned plan has become necessary. Inasmuch as the petitioners’ application for variation of the sanctioned plan is stated to be pending, it is in the interests of justice that respondent No.1 and its subordinate officers shall not remove the structures already raised, pending consideration of the petitioners’ application for variation or alteration of the sanctioned plan. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioners’ application stated to have been filed by them for variation of the sanctioned plan and take a decision thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Till the decision is communicated to the petitioners, respondent No.1 shall not interfere with the constructions already made and the petitioners shall not raise further constructions. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order dated 5-7-2011 is vacated and WPMP No.22711/2011 and WVMP Nos.3024/2011 and 3216/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 28-9-2011 AM