IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7791 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. B.Pushpamma W/o. Late B./Yellaiah R/o. 1-3-2/6, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 500 080. 2 B.Kalidas S/o. Late B.Yellaiah R/o. 1-3-2/6, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 500 080. 3 B.Anjaiah S/o. Late B./Yellaiah R/o. 1-3-2/6, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 500 080. 4 B.Ravinder S/o. Late B.Yellaiah R/o. 1-3-2/6, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 500 080. 5 B.Ramachander S/o. Late B.Yellaiah R/o. 1-3-2/6, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 500 080. 6 B.Srinivas S/o. Late B.Yellaiah R/o. 1-3-2/6, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 500 080. 7 B.Nagaraj S/o. Late B.Yellaiah R/o. 1-3-2/6, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad- 500 080. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, ( Old Circle III ) New Circle IX, Near Tank Bund, Adjacent to B.R.K.R.Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle-IX ( Old Circle No. III ) Abids, 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 declaring the action of the respondents refusing to accord permission to the petitioners to construct a compound wall around their plot No. 49, admeasuring 355.55 sq.yards with dimensions 40'X 80' situated at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad bearing municipal No. 1-3-3 corresponding new No. 1-3-2/6 vide impugned proceedings No. 2/6/3/1/D8 dt 27.02.2008 as arbitrary, unjust and capricious and opposed to law with a consequential direction to the respondents to accord sanction as per the application made by the petitioners on 21.12.2007. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.ERANKI.PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners, who are seven in number, assail in this writ petition the rejection order passed by the respondents on the application filed by them seeking permission for construction of compound wall around the house which had been constructed according to the sanctioned plan. 2. This is second journey of the petitioners to this Court. On earlier occasion, the petitioners approached this Court when the respondents constructed public lavatory on the site owned by them without acquiring the site or obtaining their consent. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 28.11.2007. The relevant portion of the order reads hereunder: “4. Since the approved plan shows that permission to construct the house was granted to the petitioners, stating that the public toilets have to be removed, and since the house of the petitioners was constructed according to the approved plan, question of the first respondent trying to construct public lavatories in the land of the petitioners high handedly cannot be permitted. If the first respondent wants to make any constructions in the property belonging to the petitioners for any public purpose, it has to acquire the property belonging to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and then only proceed with any construction therein. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondents are directed not to make any constructions in the property of the petitioners without taking steps to acquire the said property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, or other relevant law in force. No order as to costs.” It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents 1 and 2 rejected their proposal for construction of compound wall without appreciating the material placed on record. In a way it is contended that the petitioners enclosed copy of the sale deed along with the application seeking permission and the authorities have not looked into the same and thereby the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- Corporation submits that the plan submitted by the petitioners on earlier occasion for putting up constructions in the site owned by them and the plan submitted by the petitioner seeking permission for construction of compound wall vary with each other and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are justified in rejecting the permission sought for by the petitioners. 5. The permission as sought for by the petitioners came to be rejected on the ground that the plan submitted for construction of the compound wall is not tallying with the previous plan in respect of measurements and road width. 6. I have gone through the plans submitted by the petitioners on both occasions. In the plan submitted by the petitioners on the first occasion, the measurements of the site have been shown as 76.2 x 40 feet. Whereas, the measurements have been shown as 80 x 40 feet in the second plan. According to the petitioners, the measurements in the second plan have been shown as per the sale deed. In which case, it is for the petitioners to submit representation to the respondents 1 and 2 explaining the variation in the measurements. On such representation being submitted by the petitioners, the respondents 1 and 2 have to consider the said representation and pass orders thereon afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the order impugned in the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd July, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within two days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}