IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12967 of 2008 Between: V.Hari Krishna S/o.Gurumurthy R/o. Plot No.32B, Flat No.205, Classic Avenue, Erragadda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle-II, Chanda Nagar Hyderabad. 3 The R.D.O. Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman, Secunderabad at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in considering and issuing the construction permission and sanctioned plan to the petitioners for construction of building in plot Nos. 629 in Survey No. 44/1 of Mathrushreenagar, Miyapur Village, Sherlingampally Mandal, R.R. District as per the building of permit application form and plan submitted by the petitioner on 19.12.2007 as illegal, irregular, contrary to HMC Act, arbitrary, uncostitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and direct the respondents to issue the construction permission and sanction plan to the petitioners in respect of the above said plots and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12967 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed by V. Hari Krishna assailing the action of the 2nd Respondent in not receiving and considering his building permission application. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No. 629 admeasuring 389 square yards in Survey No. 44/1, situated at Miyapur village, having purchased the same from K.Promod Kumar under a registered sale deed dated 20-2-2006. His vendor purchased the site from M/s Mathrusri Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited. When the petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent with Building Permission Application, the 2nd Respondent refused to entertain the same. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.NO. 12861 of 2007, dated 16-11-2007 (U.V.K.Subba Rao Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and two others) wherein it has been held as follows: “Having regard to the fact that no injunction is subsisting against the petitioner or the society from whom the petitioner had purchased the property, I do not see any justification for respondent No.1 to reject the building permission merely for the reason that a land grabbing case is pending in respect of the land of which the petitioner’s land forms part. In the event the LGC goes against the petitioner and the society, it is always open to the State to recover the property”. 5. It is also not in dispute that status quo granted in favour of the Government in the land grabbing case came to be vacated in the writ petition filed by the Mathrusri Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited vide W.P.Nos. 3973 and 4024 of 2007. 6. The factual aspect that this Court set aside the rejection order passed by the first respondent in respect of some of the applicants is not in dispute. 7. Such is the situation this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd Respondent to entertain the Building Permission Application of the petitioner and consider the same subject to the petitioner satisfying the requirements of section 428 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. However, in the event of LGC case which is pending before the Special Court, being decided against him, the petitioner shall not claim equities or compensation for cost of the building proposed to be constructed by him. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 25th June, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12967 OF 2008 25th June, 2008