IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2111 of 2001 Between: Chand Patel S/o. Syamlal R/o.H.No.2-2-91/7, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Commisssioner Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., State Bank of India, Officers Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 3 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep.by its Vice Chairman, 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nautre of Mandamus: i) dircting the respondents not to alter or interfere with the plot No.62 in Sy.Nos.4,5 & 6 admeasuring 381 Sq.Yards situated at Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, belonging to the petitioner; ii) and to direct the respondent No.1 to implement the layout and protect parks and open spaecs as per layout; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.GANTA RAMA RAO The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2111 of 2001 ORDER: Heard both sides. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been allotted plot No.62, admeasuring 381 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad by the 2nd respondent-Bhagya Lakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited on 05.12.1990 as he being the member of the 2nd respondent society. It is stated that prior to the allotment, a tentative lay out was sanctioned vide proceedings dated 27.08.1987 and thereafter final approval was accorded on 01.08.1989. It is stated that the 2nd respondent society is intending to revise the allotment after approval of the revised lay out, therefore, action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in attempting to revise the lay out is illegal and arbitrary. There is no any basis whatsoever for such an apprehension and the petitioner has not filed any representation aggrieved by the said alleged illegal attempt said to have been made by the 2nd respondent, and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are trying to alter or interfere with the plot of the petitioner. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim order o f status quo to be maintained as on 08.02.2001. No counter is forthcoming. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail all remedies available under law, as and when the respondents tried to alter or interfere with his plot afresh. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 10.04.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Commisssioner Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., State Bank of India, Officers Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 3 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep.by its Vice Chairman, Hyderabad. 4 2. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies