IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10470 of 2002 Between: Syed Aijaz, S/o Syed Kaza Saheb, R/o H.No.1-10-73/1, Phulon, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Nizamabad Municipality, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order No.D1/37/2002, dated 26.03.2002, as illegal, contrary to law and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of revised permission in respect of the building (MunicipalNos.7-11-1056/2, 1057, 1058 and 1059) situated at Nehru Park, Bodan Road, Nizamabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondents : MR.POLISETTI RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings, dated 26th March 2002, issued by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.D1/37/2002, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for approval of revised construction plan under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. 2. The petitioner has applied for grant of permission for construction of ground and first floor of a commercial building, and the same is sanctioned by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, vide his approval proceedings No.BA13, dated 26th of May 1998. Further, the petitioner has applied for approval of revised plan, but the same is rejected by the 2nd respondent, through the impugned proceedings, indicating the following reasons : (1) the applicant has constructed the existing ground and 1st floors totally in violation to the plan approved and also further constructed others without obtaining any permission from the Municipality, and PO and CO notices have been issued; (2) Undertaking not filed which is required as per G.O.Ms.No.422, MA, dated 31-7-98. (3) As per Regd. Sale Deed copy the site owners are five persons but one person’s name is shown in the application and only one person has signed. It is the case of the petitioner that the reasons stated in the order of rejection, are illegal and arbitrary. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, that as much as there was some construction in excess of the originally sanctioned plan, an application was filed for approval of the revised plan. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has already filed an undertaking in terms of G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 31.07.1998 at the time of submitting the initial plan, and as such, there is no need to file any further undertaking along with the revised plan. Further, it is submitted that though the sale deed is in the name of five persons, as much as at the time of original sanction other owners have given their consent, it is not necessary to file the revised application by all the five persons. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has made unauthorized construction by constructing 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors and is proceeding with the construction of 5th floor. It is further stated that the allegation of the petitioner that he has made the construction with minor deviations from the original plan, is not correct, as he raised constructions without leaving any open space as required under law, and has also raised additional floors without any permission. 5. It is not in dispute that the title deed is in the name of five persons, in which event, unless all the five persons apply for permission either at first instance or with the revised plan, the application itself is a defective one, and cannot be considered as a valid one for grant of permission. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality committed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner in rejecting the application of petitioner on the ground that all the owners have not signed the application for approval of revised plan. Further, with regard to the undertaking which is required to be given in terms of G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 31.07.1998 also, as much as the petitioner is seeking revision of plan and its approval afresh, I do not see any illegality in demanding such an undertaking again. It is also to be noted that the petitioner was granted permission at first instance for construction of only ground and first floors, but he has illegally constructed three floors i.e. 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor, and also proceeding to construct 5th floor, and therefore, it cannot be said that there are only minor deviations. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned rejection proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, rejecting the application of petitioner for approval of revised plan. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd April 2009. ajr