The Government has the power to grant exemptions and relaxations under Regulation No. 12 of the Zoning Regulations, which supersedes any other regulation of the Zoning Regulations.

MAITHILI SHARON, J.

( 1 ) G. O. RT. NO. 980, M. A. , dated 3-7-1992 is questioned in this petition filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Writ, Order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of a writ of certiorari , calling for the records from the 1st respondent and further to quash the said order, which is alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case appearing in the affidavit filed by the petitioner may be summarised thus: The petitioner owns a house bearing Municipal no. 6-1-190/9a situated at Hamal Basti, Walker Town, Padmaraonagar, secunderabad, and the respondents 2 and 3, wife and husband, are residing in the adjoining house bearing Municipal No. 6-1-190/10, Respondents 2 and 3 started a new construction in the premises adjoining the petitioner s premises violating the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 and the building Bye-laws, 1981 made thereunder, and thereby affecting the easementary rights of air, lightand privacy of the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed a civil suit O. S. No. 734/93 against the respondents 2 and 3 in the Court of xi Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad, for permanent injunction restraining them from constructing the said house in those premises. She also filed an application for temporary injunction which was allowed ex pane on 9-7-1993 restraining the respondents from proceeding with any such construction. Meanwhile, the petitioner learnt from the respondents that the alleged G. O. Rt. No. 980, M. A. dated 3-7-1992 had been issued in their favour and only on that basis they were constructing the house on the said premises. Then she got a copy of that order and on its perusal she found that it was an illegal orderas the Government had no jurisdiction to issue such an order. Thus, she approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction,questioning the legality and propriety of the said G. O. which had been allegedly issued in violation of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations act,1955, Municipal Corporate on Build ing Bye-laws, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Bye-laws ), Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short the Act ) and Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981 (for short the Zoning Regulations ).

( 3 ) RESPONDENT 2 filed her counter-affidavit admitting the filing of the alleged civil suit by the petitioner against her, but denying the other averments made by her. Her contention, in short, is that for constructing the said house she had preferred a representation to the 1st respondent under Regulation No. 12 of the zoning Regulations, 1981 praying for relaxation of the Rules and the regulations in respect of front open space, rear open space and side open space, and the 1st respondent, considering all the facts and circumstances and after calling for a report from the 4th respondent, was pleased to order the relaxation prayed for, vide the impugned G. O. Therefore, according to her, the construction work was done in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the permission obtained from the Government was as per the provisions of the zoning Regulations, the Act, Bye-laws and the Municipal Corporation Act. It was further contended that factually and legally, the petitioner had no locus standi to file this writ petition. Respondent No. 4 the Municipal Corporation of hyderabad, also filed its counter-affidavit contending therein that there was no deviation or unauthorised construction of the house by Respondent No. 2, as stated by the petitioner. It further contended that the Government was empowered under the Zoning Regulations, Bye-laws and the Act to issue the order in question.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and have also carefully gone through the record of the case. None appears for respondents 1 and 4.

( 5 ) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 rai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document