THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7696 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of plot No.34, carved out of land in survey Nos.298/1 and 303/1 of Malkajgiri Revenue Village, and at present, in the Safilguda area. On an application made by him seeking permission to construct, the Malkajgiri Municipality, the 2nd respondent herein, which has since become part of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, accorded permission through proceedings, dated 05.06.1993. The petitioner states that when he started construction, the respondents obstructed the same, on the ground that a road connecting the neighbouring colony passes through the plot. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the construction to be made on the plot in accordance with the permission. The petitioner further states that on a representation made by it to the 1st respondent, a memo dated 18.09.2009, was issued upholding the right of the petitioner to construct building and directing the 2nd respondent to give up the plan to lay any road across the land of the petitioner. Heard Sri PNA Christian, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was accorded permission on 05.06.1993, to construct building upon the plot No.34. The plan was valid for a period of three years. However, when the petitioner commenced construction, it was stopped on the ground that a road is passed through the land. It is stated that the Municipality has also released amounts for laying the road. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent. After calling for reports from various authorities, the 1st respondent took the view that there is no necessity to lay any road across the land of the petitioner. Direction was also issued to the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, to issue suitable reply to R.K. Cooperative Society. In a way, the hurdle for the petitioner to construct the house is no more there. The 2nd respondent has to permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction, duly ensuring that it is made in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 2nd respondent shall take into account the memo dated 18.09.2009, issued by the 1st respondent and permit the petitioner to make construction according to the sanctioned plan. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17.02.2011. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ