IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14237 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. V.Jyothi W/o.V.Ravinder Reddy Flat No.504 D Block Siddamsetty Apartments RTC X Roads Hyderabad 2 K.Vijaya D/o.Late B.R Reddy R/o.Srinagar Colony Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Deputy Commissioner Serilingampally, Hyderabad 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep.by its Commissioner Tankbund,Hyderabad 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Chevella Division Ranga Reddy District 4 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad rep.by its Vice Chairman,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,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respodent dt.25- 4-2007 passed in Lr No.G/1693/2007 rejecting building permission in respect of her respective plot No.142 situated in SY.No.44/1 of Miyapur(V) Serilingampally(M) Ranga Reddy District as illegal arbitrary and unjust and further direct the 1st & 2 nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14237 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are two in numbers with a prayer to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent dated 25-4-2007 passed in Lr.No.G/1692/2007 rejecting building permission in respect of her respective plot NO. 142 situated in Survey No. 44/1 of Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of a plot admeasuring 500 square yards, comprising Survey No.41/1 of Miyapur village. They purchased the plot from Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Hyderabad. A lay out of Matrusri Cooperative House Building society has been regularized by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 249 M.A. dated 23-2-1993. The Government also issued G.O.Rt. No. 107, dated 25-1-1994 calling upon the society to pay Rs. 18,00,000/- towards shortfall of open spaces. The Government of Andhra Pradesh filed L.G.C.No. 29 of 2006 before the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 on the ground that it is Government land. In the said L.G.C. the petitioners vendor’s vendor namely M/s Matrusri Cooperative Housing Society Limited was impleaded as one of the respondents. Pending L.G.C. 29 of 2006 the Special Court by order dated 31-8-2006 in I.A.No. 446 of 2006 directed the respondent not to alienate the land and they should maintain status quo. Questioning the same, the society filed W.P.No. 3973 of 2007 and the said writ petition came to be allowed holding that there is no prima facie case for granting such relief. The society informed the result of the writ petition to its members including the petitioners. Some of the plot owners of Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society filed Building Permission Applications. The applications filed by them were rejected on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella requested not to sanction any building permission in respect of the land in Sy.No. 44/1, pending disposal of the L.G.C.No. 29 of 2006. One plot owner namely U.K.V. Subba Rao filed W.P.No. 1861 of 2007 questioning the rejection of building permission. This writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 16-11-2007 directing the Municipal authorities to consider the application for Building Permission. Subsequently, similar order was passed in W.P.No. 2287 of 2008 on 5-2-2008. The petitioners submitted Building Permission Application. Their application came to be rejected on the ground of pendency of L.G.C. case. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered in the judgment of W.P.No.12861 of 2007 (U.V.K. Subba Rao Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and two others) and W.P.No. 1833 of 2008 (J.V. Ramapathi Rao and others Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and two others). 5. Indisputably no injunction is subsisting against the petitioners, or society from whom the petitioners purchased the property. When similarly situated persons approached this Court, their writ petitions came to be allowed directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the Building Permission Application filed by them. 6. Therefore, in the absence of any legal bar for granting building permission subject to the petitioners satisfying the requirements of section 428 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the petitioners are entitled to grant of building permission. However, in the event of LGC case which is pending before the Special Court being decided against them, the petitioners shall not claim equities or compensation for cost of the building constructed by them. The respondents shall accordingly consider the application of the petitioners for granting building permission. 7. With the above observation this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 4th July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14237 OF 2008 4th July, 2008.