IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1568 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/11/2008 in WP NO : 11316 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. M. Sunitha W/o. M. Balraj R/o. H.No. 8-2-138, Kattarampur Lane, Karimnagar. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. at Hyderabad. 2 The Town Planning Officer, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. 3 The Building Inspector, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. 4 R @ K. Chandana W/o. K. Srikanth R/o. H.No. Kattarampur, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1568 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Heard both sides and at their request the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. In a neighbourly dispute the appellant herein who is writ petitioner in W P No. 11316 of 2008 filed by her complaining against certain constructions being made in violation of permission and also sanction plan, apart from having neighbour interests and privacy etc. In the writ petition the complaint was that the respondent is not proceeding with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and in spite of several complaints made by her including complaints dated 10.3.2008 and 7.4.2008 , no action is taken. After taking into consideration the submission from both the sides, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to take further action for removal of the constructions made by respondent no.4 in deviation to the sanctioned plan, after the disposal of the application filed under BPS scheme. The said BPS scheme was under challenge before this Court in batch of writ petitions and it is pointed out by both counsel that this Court has already disposed of batch of cases where BPS scheme was under challenge and issued certain direction in K.H.V. PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P [1], wherein it is observed that “any objector including a neighbour of an offending construction, undoubtedly has locus and would be entitled to object to the construction ……” Necessarily it follows that at a time when such application comes forth for consideration , all these objections are to be considered, admittedly, the application filed by the fourth respondent is pending consideration, In view of the same nothing remains to be considered in this appeal. However, the appellant herein is at liberty to file her objections and on filing such objections, the same shall be considered by the first respondent after giving due notice and opportunity to both sides and holding an enquiry. The appellant is permitted to file objections within a period of two weeks from today and on receipt thereof the authorities shall dispose of the same within a period of one month thereof. It is needless to mention that though it is stated by the learned counsel for fourth respondent that the entire construction is over, however, apprehension is expressed by the counsel for appellant that still construction activity is going on and sought for a direction to main status quo. In the circumstances, it is made clear that any construction made pending consideration of these proceedings, shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the authorities on the application made by the fourth respondent under BPS scheme. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J SANJAY KUMAR,J Date: 5.8.2009 tvk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1568 of 2008 Date: 5.8.2009 [1] 2009 (4) ALT 71 (DB)