Banothu Jegya v. The State Of Telangana,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 10538 of 2017 ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with the construction of building consisting of ground + first floor in Plot No.26, Sy.Nos.563/1/2, 564, 566, 567/1, 568, 569, 570/1/2, 571/2, 613, 615, 572/2, 611, 612, 614/2, 560, 561 and 578/4/2 EWS Category of Bathakammakunt, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, without following due process of law, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Para 4 of the writ affidavit reads as under:

"I further submit that, after I purchasing the same, I applied to the 2nd respondent for building permission and obtained the same vide permit No.48540/DC/CZ/Cir-9/2016 dated 10.03.2016 for construction of ground and first floor in the said plot. I submit that, by pooling up money for construction, in the month of December, 2016 I started construction and in fact my construction is strictly as per sanctioned plan. However, when the construction is in progress, the officials of 3rd respondent yesterday visited the site and directed to stop further construction on the ground that some locals made complaint against me. In fact, some local leaders demanded me money for making construction and as I refused to pay any amount, they started harassing me one way or the other with ulterior motives. I submit that, I am constructing strictly as per

sanctioned plan and will construct only as per sanctioned plan. Even assuming that, if any violations are there or if any action is proposed against me by the respondents, they have to follow procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act."

As can be seen from para 4 of the writ affidavit, there appears to be some anti-social elements, in the guise of respondent officials, approaching and demanding money from the petitioners. This is evident from the assertion of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that no officers visited the subject plot, and the construction has not yet commenced thereat and only work shed, as of now, has been raised.

Inasmuch as the Writ Petition appears to have been filed on apprehension, liberty is given to the respondent - authorities to take action, if there are any violations in the construction made by the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

___________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J Date: 27.03.2017 usd