IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24099 of 2001 Between : Naseem Ahmed S/o Late Sri Naseer Ahmed, R/o H.No.5-6-597/1, Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Nizamabad Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Nizamabad 2 Smt Tara Bai D/o Mr.Nandu, W/o Sri Lal Singh, R/o Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad 3 Sri Farooq Ahmed S/o Sri Ameer Ahmed, Muthkunta Village & Mandal, Nizamabad District. .....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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents modifying the sanctioned lay out in the year 1951-52 vide file No.234/1 of 1951 AD dt: 21.1.1952 in which open plot was left for common purpose now to use for buildings purpose, illegal and arbitrary in the nature and contrary to the buildings bye-law and Rules and consequently entertaining the application for building permission from 2nd and 3rd respondents to sanction plan for construction of the buildings, in the open plot left out in the layout for common purpose is illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner : MS.G.SUDHA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of Nizamabad Municipality, presently, the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, in taking steps for modification of the layout, which was granted in the year 1951-52 in File No.234/17 of 1951, dated 21.01.1952, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petition is filed only on the apprehension that the 1st respondent is going to modify the layout in question, on the application filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The petitioner has not stated whether any orders are passed on the said application, modifying the layout, which was granted in the year 1951-52. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is stated that the 1st respondent be directed to adhere to the sanctioned layout given by it in 1951-52 and not to permit any illegal constructions in the said layout. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement made in the writ petition, and in view of the fact that no orders are passed so far by the 1st respondent, modifying the sanctioned layout, it is evident that this writ petition is filed prematurely without there being any cause of action. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach this Court whenever there is any modification to the layout in question, contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, and the byelaws made thereunder. 5. Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th June 2009 ajr