THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.17322 of 2008
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering into the construction work of the petitioner in Plot No.3, Sy.No.74/9, East Marredpally village, Secunderabad as per building permission vide permit No.158/51 of 2008, in File No.1711/TSP/SC/NZ/GHMC/N6/2008 obtained her as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.3, Sy.No.74/9, admeasuring 333.08 Sq.Meters situated at East Marredpally village, Secunderabad. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the said property is the private property owned by her and she obtained valid permission vide permit no.
No.158/51 of 2008, in File No.1711/TSP/SC/NZ/GHMC/N6/2008 from the Greater ::2::
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for construction of a building in the said plot, the respondents are causing interference with her construction over the subject property.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in a similar subject matter, this Court disposed of W.P.No.11562 of 2008, dated 29.06.2011; W.P.No.7288 of 2008, 8200 of 2008 dated 30.06.2011; W.P.No.11907 of 2008 dated, 18.07.2011 and W.P.No.11562 of 2008 dated.29.06.2011, directing the respondents not to interfere with the constructions of the petitioners therein.
5. It is not in dispute that with regard to the subject property, the respondents have already filed LGC No.167 of 1997 before the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, alleging that the petitioner is ::3::
a land grabber. It is stated that the said LGC was dismissed, as against which, the respondents have carried the matter in Writ Petition being W.P.No.19106 of 2010 before this Court. However, in the said LGC No.167 of 1997, by virtue of the very claim of the respondents, the possession of the petitioner over the plot in question is admitted. It is to be noticed that as per permit No.158/51 of 2008 issued by the competent authority i.e. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the petitioner has proceeded with the construction work in the subject property.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with the constructions covered under valid permit No.158/51 of 2008, issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.3, Sy.No.74/9, East Maredpally village, Secunderabad. However, it is made clear that such constructions shall be subject to the final orders in W.P.No.19106 of 2010, which is filed by the respondents against the judgment passed in ::4::
LGC No.167 of 1997 on the file of Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad.
6. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall no order as to costs.
__________________
K.SARATH, J
08.11.2022
trr