IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22482 of 2001 Between: 1 Badri Vishal Pitti, S/o.Late Sri Pannalal Bansilal Pitti, Rep.by its Power of Auttorney Holder Sri Sanvarlal Sharma, R/o.6-3-648/2, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Vinod Kumar Kanoria, S/o.Radhakishan Kanoria, Rep.by its Power of Auttorney Holder Sri Sanvarlal Sharma, R/o.6-3-648/2, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary (R&B) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Municipality, Serilingampalli, R.R.District. 3 The Station House Officer, Raj Durg Police Station, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for respondent No.2: GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in placing two dustbins within the premises of the petitioners in Survey Nos.135 and 142 of Nanakaramaguda Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and unconstitutional. It is averred by the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the properties in Survey Nos.135 and 142 of Nanakaramaguda Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that when respondent No.2 entered the said land by marking the road margins allegedly for road widening, without following due process of law, they ﬁled W.P.No.12738 of 2000 questioning the said action and that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Municipality that there are no approved plans for widening of the existing road in the said two survey numbers and by observing that if any action is required for widening the road, the same shall be taken in accordance with law. The petitioners alleged that almost one year after the disposal of the said writ petition, the oﬃcials of respondent No.2 came to their property on 04-10-2001 and placed two dustbins on the north-east corner area inside their premises, with a threat given to the watchman not to remove the same and that protesting the said action, the petitioners made representation dated 05-10-2001 to respondent No.2, which did not yield any response. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present writ petition. No counter-affidavits are filed by any of the respondents At the hearing, it has come out that respondent No.2 has got merged in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and is no longer a Municipality. Be that as it may, as the averments in the aﬃdavit remained uncontroverted, this Court has no option other than coming to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioners are correct. If the two dustbins are placed within the property of the petitioners, without their consent, such an action is totally illegal and unconstitutional. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is directed to depute an Oﬃcer to inspect the above mentioned premises of the petitioners, after notice to the petitioners, and if the Oﬃcer ﬁnds that the place over which the two dustbins are stated to be kept forms part of the petitioners’ premises, he shall take steps to forthwith remove the two dustbins. However, if he ﬁnds that the property is a public property and not part of private premises of the petitioners, the Corporation shall, on his report, pass a reasoned order to that eﬀect and communicate the same to the petitioners. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th September, 2008 vrn