THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31091 OF 2011 Date: 30th November, 2011 Between: P.Rukmini Bai and others …..Petitioners AND Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31091 OF 2011 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with constructions and structures over the land admeasuring 1326 square yards in Survey No.158, 159, 161, 162 and 163 with house No.7-1-77/2/B, 7-1- 77/2/C and 7-1-77/2/D situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, except in accordance with law. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners herein are the owners of land to an extent of 1326 square yards in Survey No.158, 159, 161, 162 and 163 of Ameerpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District having purchased from their vendor Sri K.N.Krishna Iyer under different registered sale deeds, that A.Saraswathi Ammal, W/o. K.N.Krishna Iyer earlier filed declaration under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short, the Act) and the proceedings were processed and the competent authority under the Act, vide proceedings C.C.No.B/1358/76, dated 21.6.1983, held that the subject land is protected area under Section 4(11) of the Act, that A.Saraswathi Ammal sold the property to the petitioners by obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Act, vide proceedings No.C1/414/27/1985, dated 26.3.1985, that the petitioners constructed houses by obtaining permission from GHMC vide permit No.3846, dated 11.6.1984, that the officials of the respondents came to the subject house on 17.11.2011 and started demolition of structures without issuing any notice and without hearing the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that while granting permission in 6/2007, will be valid for three years and this condition was imposed in the permit issued to petitioners, that the Tahsildar, Ameerpet in letter No.B/1133/2003, dated 28.10.2011, has informed the Assistant City Planner, Circle-10, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Hyderabad that the petitioners have applied for regularization of land under G.O.Ms.No.166 and the same was rejected as the land in question is classified as M-Kalva and later the petitioners were informed not to take up any construction over the subject land, that GHMC has granted permission for construction of two blocks, that the permission will be valid for three years and that as the time period is lapsed, the petitioners have to apply for fresh permission. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the property in question and they made application for sanction the building plan and basing on a letter issued by the Tahsildar, Ameerpet, the respondents are interfering with the progress of the construction, and therefore, he prays to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the construction over the subject cite. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that there is a serious title dispute with regard to the subject site and that the building plan obtained by the petitioners is lapsed and they cannot proceed with the further construction without renewing the plan, and hence, demolition of the structures would be in accordance with due process of law. 7. The petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the property in question, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds and after purchase, the petitioners said to have applied for permission to construct the building in the year 2007. It is not in dispute before this Court that a construction has to be started and completed within three years. But the petitioners neither completed the construction in three years nor renewed the sanction plan. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to proceed further in making construction. 8. Therefore, the status-quo as on today shall be maintained till the petitioners obtain renewal of sanction plan for construction of the building under construction. However, it is made clear that this status-quo order would not preclude the respondents Corporation in demolishing the building in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 30th November, 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31091 OF 2011 Date: 30th November, 2011