THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3308 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is a welfare association of Radhe Nagar Colony near H.S.Darga, Hyderabad. It is stated that when a lay out was submitted for that area, in which the colony has come up, an extent of 2000 square yards was set apart for development into a park and that it has been transferred in favour of Serlingampally Municipal Council, 2nd respondent herein, which has since become part of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the municipality is trying to construct a community hall in the open area of 2000 square yards. It is stated that on earlier occasion, a school building was constructed in a corner and slowly the entire open area was being put to a different use The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to construct a community hall in the area set apart for park in the final lay out, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Consequential direction is sought against the respondents to restrain from converting the park area for any other purpose. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is admitted that an extent of 2013 square yards of open area was earmarked for park in the lay out sanctioned by Hyderabad Development Authority vide proceedings dated 21.04.1992 in favour of Sri Anand Kumar and others. The allegation of the petitioner that permission was accorded for construction of community hall in the open area is denied. It is admitted that in the western corner of the open space, a school under DPEP scheme was constructed in the year 1999. The other allegations made by the petitioner are denied. Heard Sri K.G.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. There is no dispute that an extent of 2013 square yards of open place was earmarked for park while according approval for the lay out in the land in Survey Nos.47,48 and 49 of Raidurg Paiga Village in the year 1992. The petitioner complains that the 2nd respondent accorded permission for construction of a community hall. Whatever may have been the basis for the apprehension of the petitioner, the matter stands clarified with the unequivocal statement made by the respondents that no such permission was accorded. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, apart from denying the allegation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has also stated that it has no intention to take up any further construction over the open space contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act and G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 20.02.2002. With this, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of taking on record the statement made by respondents 2 and 3 that they would not undertake any construction in the open place, in Survey Nos.47,48 and 49 of Raidurg Paiga Village, specified in permit No.9705/90, dated 21.04.1992, by the Hyderabad Development Authority. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 29.12.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3308 of 2004 Date: 29.12.2008 JSU