IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 22956 of 1998 BETWEEN: 1 C.J. Narayanan S/o C. Jagannadham, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2-1-438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 2 K. Anjaneyulu, S/o Lingaiah, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2-1- 438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 3 Mohan Gopal, S/o D. Nagaraja Rao, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2- 1-438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 4 N. Nagaraj, S/o Koteswara Rao, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2-1- 438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 5 Nitin Pornekar, S/o Kishan Rao, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2-1- 438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 6 Vandana Doke W/o Nitin Pornekar, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2- 1-438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 7 Dr. Syamala Kumari, W/o Dr. Yella Rao, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2-1-438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 8 V. Anupama, W/o S.R.K. Prasad, Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2-1- 438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Department Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad near Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner Circle-VI, Circle Officer, 4th Floor, M.C.H. Building, Abids, Hyderabad. 4 Safia Rajaiah, S/o Raja Veeraiah, H.No.2-1-438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 5 P. Sridhar S/o Laxminarayana, R/o Flat No. 104, Swati Apartment, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to permit or make illegal constructions in the Srinilaya Apartments, H.No.2-1-438/1 Nallakunta, Hyderabad contrary to the sanctioned plan sanctioned by the Commissioner 461/84-29/TP3/CCP/92 dt:9-8-1995 and further to direct the respondents 4 and 5 acting in contra to the sanctioned plan dt:9-8-1995 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.R.KAMESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUN. ADMN & DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: MR. R. RAMAKANTH REDDY – SC FOR MPL. CORP. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR.M.V.RAJA RAM Counsel for the Respondents 6 & 7: MR. S.V. BHATT The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that the fourth respondent was the original owner of the house site admeasuring 666 sq. yards bearing No.2-1-438/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and the fifth respondent is the builder to construct the apartments for residential purpose in the said site. The petitioners purchased the flats from the respondents 4 and 5. The original owner – fourth respondent died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 6 and 7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a sanction plan permit No.461/84 vide Lr.No.29/TP8/CCP/92 dated 09.08.1995 was obtained for construction of the apartments in the site belonging to the fourth respondent to be constructed by the fifth respondent. As per the sanction plan the building has to be constructed with stilt plus parking plus three upper floors subject to certain terms and conditions. The sanction was accorded for construction of stilt + parking + three upper floors alone – three floors comprising 18 apartments and the total residential units being 19 out of which the petitioners purchased 12 apartments in 1996 and the remaining 6 apartments are with the land owner/fourth respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Government has issued orders for regularization of unauthorized constructions in respect of the constructions already made and under the guise of the Government order for regularization, the fourth respondent started constructing apartments on the fourth floor contrary to sanction plan. Therefore, they seek a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to permit the respondents 4 to 7 to make any illegal constructions contrary to the sanction plan/permit. 3. Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 on 07.03.2005 stating that while undertaking construction as per the sanction plan, the respondents 4 and 5, not only projected the balcony in the all-round open space but also constructed pent house over and above the third floor contrary to the sanction plan. It is stated that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.491 Municipal Administration & Urban Development dated 30.07.1998 enabling the Corporation to regularize the deviations and unauthorized constructions made prior to the cut off date i.e.30.07.1998, accordingly the fourth respondent submitted the proposal for regularization of the unauthorized construction i.e. deviation of the pent house constructed in the fourth floor and the corporation considered the application and regularized the said pent house and deviations of the balcony projections. It is stated that the corporation has demolished the room unauthorizedly constructed in the stilt floor, as the same cannot be regularized even as per the said GO. Thus, it is the case of the corporation that permissible unauthorized constructions were already regularized. 4. The respondents 6 and 7, the legal heirs of the original owner/fourth respondent, filed a counter stating that they have availed the benefit of the said GO by regularizing the unauthorized constructions on the fourth floor by paying the requisite amount vide File No.1125/BRS/HO/98 with building regularization No.450/C3/2000 dated 04.05.2000 by paying the penal amount of Rs.10,000/- relating to Flat No.402 over the third floor and similar regularization was obtained in File No.9133/BRS/HO/98 with building regularization No.1680C3/W2/2004 dated 04.12.2004 by paying the penal amount of Rs.10,000/- in respect of Flat No.403 – pent house. Thus, the unauthorized constructions on the fourth floor i.e. pent house consisting of two flats have already regularized, which have no been questioned before this Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that unless the said regularization proceedings are questioned, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 20, 2008 DSK