HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2157 of 2004 Date : 03.11.2009 Between : Sri V.Sambasiva Rao & others. …..Petitioners And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2157 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are residents of Srinivasanagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, questions the action of respondents 3 and 4 in raising constructions on the Southern side of the existing Sri Guruvayurappa temple in the said colony. 2. Srinivasanagar colony in Bagh Amberpet is in the layout approved by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, in the year 1971. In certain areas earmarked for park and open areas in the lay out, a temple was constructed by respondents No.3 and 4. When further constructions were taken up by erecting pillars on Southern side of temple for construction of Kalyana Mandapam, the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2004, stating that such constructions are illegal and are in encroachment of public roads. 3. In the writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that inspite of representation submitted to respondents 1 and 2, no action is being taken by them and allowing such constructions by respondents 1 and 2 is also in contravention of the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 20.02.2002. 4. Vide the aforesaid G.O., the Government has issued instructions to the Nagarpanchayats/Municipalities and Municipal Corporations not to utilize the reserved open spaces in the approved layouts for any other purposes than usage as park, playground, community structure, urban forestry, etc. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the respondents have raised 12 Columns on the Southern side of the temple for construction of Kalyana Mandapam, and on noticing the same, the constructions were stopped. It is further stated that they have already taken steps by issuing notice as contemplated under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 on 27th February 2003/3rd March 2003. It is further submitted that though there was an earlier sanction for construction of temple and Kalyana Mandapam, but in view of expiry of three years period, respondents are not entitled to proceed with the construction of Kalyana Mandapam basing on such permission, which was already lapsed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that though there was earlier proposal for construction of Kalyana Mandapam on Southern side of the temple, but respondents 3 and 4 themselves have abandoned such construction, and now, they are not proceeding with any constructions. 7. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 to the effect that they are not proceeding with construction of Kalyana Mandapam on the Southern side of the temple, there is no need to examine the pleas raised by the petitioners. In any event, as it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1-Commissioner that the validity of permission is also lapsed, no construction can be made at this point of time by respondents 3 and 4. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition placing on record the statement made by respondents 3 and 4 that they have abandoned the construction of Kalyana Mandapam on the Southern side of the temple. However, it is made clear that if any constructions are made without permission, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate steps to prevent such illegal constructions. It is also made clear that this will not prevent respondents 3 and 4 from making any other application for constructions, in accordance with law. 8. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2009 ajr