THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.5461 and 6556 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both the writ petitions are interconnected. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.5461 of 2010. The petitioner is the owner of premises, bearing No.3-6-429/1 and 2, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Respondents 3 and 4 are spouses and immediate neighbours of the petitioner. They have purchased small plots of 125 square yards and obtained permissions for construction of houses. The petitioner complains that respondents 3 and 4 are making construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and though the same was brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, no action has been taken thereon. The 1st respondent issued a notice, dated 10.03.2010, to the 3rd respondent, under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), stating that the 3rd respondent has unauthorizedly constructed the building. W.P.No.6556 of 2010 is filed assailing the same. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner filed the writ petition, almost on an apprehension. It does not appear that he has verified the sanctioned plan, before the writ petition is filed. Obviously, on the strength of interim orders passed in the writ petition, the Corporation issued the notice under Section 452 of the Act to the 3rd respondent. However, the notice is silent as to the nature of deviations. Across the Bar, it is stated that the Corporation has withdrawn the notice, with liberty to issue another notice in accordance with law. Though respondents 3 and 4 held valid permits, they are under obligation to make construction strictly in accordance with them. In case any deviations are noticed, it shall be open to the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of respondents 1 and 2. Hence, W.P.No.6556 of 2010 is closed, duly recording the statement made on behalf of the Corporation stating that the notice impugned is withdrawn. W.P.No.5461 of 2010 is disposed of, directing that the respondents 3 and 4 shall be entitled to make construction strictly in accordance with the permissions granted to them and they shall not be entitled to deviate from the sanctioned plan, notwithstanding any orders that may have been passed by a Civil Court in their favour. In case any deviations are noticed, it shall be open to the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, who, in turn, shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.16.04.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. by 20.04.2010. (B/o) GJ