THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.1063 of 2008 Dated 27th June, 2011 Between: Naresh Kumar Agarwal …Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Municipality Zone, Ranga Reddy District, rep.by its Commissioner at Moosapet, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Pulipati Radhika Counsel for respondent No.1: Dr.Y.Padmavathi The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not taking action against respondent No.2 against the illegal constructions being proceeded with in Plot No.HIG 15, Road No.1, KPHB, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, the learned counsel representing Smt.Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1, on written instructions, stated that on the complaint received from the petitioner that respondent No.2 has commenced construction without following the conditions stipulated in the sanctioned plan, dated 01.01.2003, the site was inspected and it was noticed that respondent No.2 was excavating the pits on the side intended to be left for setback of the building for providing lift and as the construction is at initial stage, the same was stopped. The learned counsel further stated that at present there is no construction undertaken by respondent No.2. At the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not present. It needs no emphasis that it is the duty of respondent No.1 to ensure that the constructions are made by the owners of the buildings strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. As respondent No.2 is stated to have admitted to raise construction in the space earmarked for setbacks, respondent No.1 shall ensure that such construction is not made unless proper sanction is obtained by respondent No.2 therefor. As respondent No.1 is stated to have prevented respondent No.2 from raising further construction, which was found to be at preliminary stage, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 not to permit respondent No.2 to raise any construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1269 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th June, 2011 VGB