WP/27300/2005 of G.Anjaneyulu Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep.by its on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner purchased a house bearing No.1-9-113/29 situated atSeetharamanagar near Vidyanagar, Hydeabad. As the said house required repairsand was in a collapsible condition, he submitted an explanation to the respondentCorporation seeking sanction of building permission. According to the petitioner, theapplication was considered by the Building committee, which duly recommendedthe case and in spite of the same, the respondent did not issue necessary ordersgranting building permission. Therefore, the present writ petition seeking a directionto the respondent to sanction the building approval.

Heard Mrs.G.Madhuri representing Sri N. Gurugopal, the learned Counsel for thepetitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Sri Ghanta Rama Rao. A perusal of theletter dated 18/21.3.2005 addressed by the Chief City Planner to the Chief PlanningOfficer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) would show that theBuilding committee has recommended the case of the petitioner, but the latterobjected for granting building permission on the ground that the petitioner’spremises is a mandatory open space in the layout. At that stage, the Chief CityPlanner sought clarification from HUDA and the matter is pending. Therefore, it is forthe Municipal Corporation to seek necessary clarification and pass appropriateorders on the application of the petitioner for building permission. The learnedStanding Counsel does not dispute this position. Therefore, the writ petition isdisposed of directing the respondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders on theapplication made by the petitioner seeking permission for construction of ground andfirst floor residential house within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order.

The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

December 28, 2005. (V.V.S. RAO,J)

YS

_____________