THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21020 of 2010 Dated 17th October, 2011 Between: Vadde Padma …Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle-2, Uppal, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ch.Lakshman Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1: Ms.V.Jaya Sree For Sri C.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri M.Dhanamjay Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: AGP for Irrigation & CAD The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting building permission for construction of a residential house on the petitioner’s plot as illegal and arbitrary. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the land in Survey No.44 is falling in institutional zone as per the notified master plan approved by G.O.Ms.No.391, MA, dated 23.06.1980, and in terms of zoning regulations, residential activity is not permissible and that the plot is falling under FTL of Peddacheruvu of Ramanathapur village and prone to be submerged in water. The counter affidavit relied upon revised building regulations issued under G.O.Ms.No.86, MA, dated 03.03.2006, and G.O.Ms.No.171, MA, dated 19.04.2006, under which, no building permission can be granted by respondent Nos.1 and 2, in respect of such plots. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-3 of respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has constructed ground floor on plot No.10-B/1 in Survey No.44 of Lakshmi Nagar, Ramanathapur, Uppal Mandal, Hyderabad in the year 1998 without any permission from the then Uppal Kalan Municipality and that the said construction was regularised under BPS as per G.O.Ms.No.418, MA, dated 30.07.1998. It is further stated that the petitioner has constructed first floor without any permission and made an application for regularisation under BPS as per G.O.Ms.No.901, MA, dated 31.12.2007, in the year 2008 and that as per the guidelines governing BPS, the applications could not be processed as the said building falls within the limits of water body of Peddacheruvu, Ramanathapur. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the contents of the above counter affidavits. In my opinion, since the plot of the petitioner falls within the FTL of Peddacheruvu as per the stand taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2, no direction can be given to grant building permission to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26750 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th October, 2011 VGB