THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.43 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners are the owners of premises bearing No.8-2-244/3, 247 and 247/2, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. They submitted an application in the year 2000 with a request to permit them to construct a building. The application was rejected on 06-04-2000 on the ground that the dimensions are not tallying with the ground. Thereafter, the petitioners made another application seeking permission to construct, after an extent of 102.8 square yards of land was acquired for widening of the road. The application was initially returned for want of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector certified that the petitioners are the owners only to the extent of 182 square metres. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad informed the petitioners to restrict their application to that area. The petitioners submitted a revised plan to construct over 182 square metres on 05-08-2006. On the ground that the plan was neither rejected nor allowed, the petitioners commenced construction by issuing notice of commencement. Their grievance is that the respondents are taking steps to demolish the structures. The petitioners submit that the construction undertaken by them is strictly in accordance with the relevant bye-laws. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. The fact that the petitioners submitted applications at various stages and a revised application in the year 2006 is admitted. It is, however, stated that on coming to know that a M.R.T.S Station is likely to be constructed on the site, the application was rejected through proceedings, dated 28-02-2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The acts and omissions on the part of the respondents demonstrate as to how difficult it is for a citizen to undertake activity, if he intends to conform to law. Every plausible effort made by the petitioners to make the construction on the basis of the sanctioned plan was thwarted by the respondents, on the one ground or the other. After exhausting all plausible grounds, the respondents have invoked the probable and future acquisition, that too, by a different authority. There cannot be a better example for redtapism of bureaucracy than this. It is not as if the Corporation is the authority to acquire the land or properties for the benefit of others. Even the Government in its Revenue Department or the agency which proposes to launch any project could not have objected for the development of the property assuming that it is going to be affected. This Court takes serious exception to the attitude exhibited by the respondents from time to time. An interim order was passed by this Court on 29-03-2007 permitting the petitioner to complete the construction. It is stated that the construction has since been completed. It shall be treated as the one under deemed permission. The only verification which the respondents can undertake is as to whether the petitioner violated any building bye-laws, that too, in the context of leaving set backs. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the construction undertaken by the petitioners in premises bearing No. 8-2-244/3, 247 & 247/2, Panjagutta, Hyderabad shall be treated as the one under deemed permission. The respondents shall be entitled to verify the structure only with reference to set backs and number of permissible floors under the bye-laws and issue notice to the petitioners, if any violations are found. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 10th February, 2011 VJL/KDL