IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2560 of 2007 Between: Ms.Reshma Sayeed, d/o M.A.G.Sayeed, represented by her GPA Mr.M.A.G.Sayeed, s/o M.A.Majeed, r/o H.No.5-9- 24/68, Hill Fort, Hyderabad-500 063. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 2.The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle V, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction activity of the petitioner in H.No.8-2-598/A/1/14/1 situated at Banjara Hills, Road No.10, Hyderabad in accordance with the permit bearing No.110/56 of 2005 dated 29-4-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice besides violative of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the construction being carried out by the petitioner as per the permit No.110/56 of 2005 dated 29-4-2005 and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2560 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction activity of the petitioner over her plot bearing No.8-2-598/A/1/14/1 situated at Banjara Hills, Road No.10, Hyderabad. The petitioner states that during the year 1984, she purchased a plot bearing No.8-2-598/A/1/14/1, admeasuring 352.82 sq. yards equivalent to 295.00 sq. meters, situated at Banjara Hills, Road No.10, Hyderabad. She further contends that she obtained permit, vide permit No.110/56 of 2005, dated 29.04.2005, as required under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, to construct a residential building consisting of the ground plus two floors on the said plot. While so, when the constructions were in progress, the 2nd respondent- Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle V, Khairthabad, Hyderabad, issued notice dated 06.12.2006 to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has dug the land upto eight feet depth with an intention to lay the cellar floor area unauthorisedly without any written permission and she was directed to stop further unauthorized digging of earth and fill the same. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation that the site purchased by her was eight feet lower than the road level and since her plot was vacant from the date of purchase, all the neighbours dumped their garbage on her plot, and therefore, while proceeding with the construction work, she has taken steps to remove the garbage and that she has no intention of living in the cellar floor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no intention to lay the cellar, contrary to the permission granted to her, and since her plot was eight feet below the road level and all the neighbours dumped garbage in her plot, she has taken steps to remove the garbage dumped in her plot. He also submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to the suggestions of this Court, the petitioner gave an undertaking on 31.03.2007 to the 2nd respondent to the effect that she will not use the cellar and she will take steps to fill it up in due course and that she shall proceed with the constructions according to the permit issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. A copy of the said undertaking has been filed before this Court. As much as the petitioner has stated in her explanation to the notice dated 06.12.2006 of the 2nd respondent that she has no intention of living in the cellar, and since she has also given an undertaking to the effect that she will not use the cellar and she will take steps to fill it up in due course and that she shall proceed with the constructions according to the permit issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the notice dated 06.12.2006 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the notice dated 06.12.2006 is set aside. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner uses the cellar area contrary to the permit issued by the Municipal Corporation, without filling the same, it is open for the respondent Municipal Corporation to take steps in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 28.04.2009 v v