IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 17 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/09/2008 in WP NO : 18854 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Venkatesam, R/o.1-25-35, Sai Baba Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad-11 ..... APPELLANT AND Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI MEKA RAJASEKHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent.: SRI R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following : . THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 17 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal is filed questioning the order, dated 29.9.2008 in WP No.18854 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondent-corporation to consider the application of the appellant for building permission subject to the appellant’s undertaking that he will not claim structural compensation in the event of 73.00 sq. metres of land being acquired by the respondent-corporation for public purpose. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge that the appellant shall give an undertaking that he will not claim structural compensation. The appellant’s application for sanction of building plan was returned by the respondent requiring him to resubmit the plan by excluding 73 sq. meters of land on the ground that they are contemplating laying of a road over the said extent of lands admittedly belonging to the appellant. So far, no steps are initiated by the respondent to acquire the said land. In the absence of initiation of any such proceedings, there is no justification for the respondent to refuse the building permission on the purported ground that a part of the land being needed for laying a road in future. In our considered view, the direction that the appellant shall give an undertaking not to claim compensation for the structure that may be raised in pursuance of the plan that may be sanctioned by the Corporation cannot be sustained as the same impinges on the right of the appellant to enjoy his property. As no proceedings for acquisition of the land have so far been initiated by the respondents, the appellant is entitled to seek sanction of plan without any restriction on his right to raise structure and claim compensation for the same in the event of its acquisition in future. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed and the direction given by the learned Single Judge regarding undertaking to be given by the appellant shall stand deleted. The order under appeal is accordingly modified. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Dated: 21.1.2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 17 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) 21.1.2009