Md. Ziyauddin v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10306 of 2016 ORDER:

Heard Ms. B. V. Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Pingali Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation.

The prayer of the petitioner in this case is as under: "It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 to 4 in issuing the Rejection Memo in R.O.C.No. HO/G1/17336/15, dated 16-03-2016, referring to the draft Master Plan as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder and set aside the same, and consequently praying this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents to grant the building permission for the petitioner's plot, vide Application in B.A. No.

75/14-16, dated 08-02-2016, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." By the impugned Memo dated 16.03.2016, the application dated 08.02.2016 filed by the petitioner for construction of building/ compound wall was rejected placing reliance on a draft master plan, wherein it was stated that 150' wide road was shown and the petitioner should file the revised plan.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that the issue arising in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.10456 of 2014, wherein it was observed that as long as a final notification was not issued and the master plan was still at the draft stage, it cannot be said to have come into force and the petitioner therein was entitled to have his application considered in accordance with the existing master plan and accordingly set aside the impugned endorsement. A copy of the order dated 11.04.2014 passed in the said writ petition is also placed on record.

For reasons alike as were stated in the afore-stated order and in

terms thereof, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to resubmit his application for construction of building / compound wall. Within four weeks from the date of submission of application by the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law, including the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the Rules and Byelaws made therunder and take a decision thereon and duly communicate the same to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Date:30.03.2016 GJ