IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2616 of 2009 Between: Sri Vinay Parekar S/o.late Dattatreya Rao Parekar R/o.H.No.5-3-831/4, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Central Zone, Circle-8, GHMC, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Letter No.ACP/TPS/C8/CZ/GHMC/2009 dt. 3.2.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NARSING RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner and his brother purchased the property in an extent of 898 sq. yards which includes open land in the premises bearing No.5-3-303/C, situated at Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad and is running business in the name of M/s. Sree Datt and Company, Stones and Tiles Merchant. While so, his neighbours on the southern side, sold their property bearing H.No.5-3-319 by executing an Agreement of Sale-cum- General Power of Attorney in favour of M/s.Jain Constructions. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that M/s.Jain Constructions, lodged a false complaint with the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner encroached the open land and is stocking Shahbad stones and Mangalore tiles in it and that land formed part of the premises No.5-3-303/C, and further, claiming that the said land is an approach road to the premises No.5-3- 319, filed O.S. No.1344 of 2008 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and when the matter is pending adjudication, the 2nd respondent issued impugned letter dated 3.2.2009 directing the petitioner to remove the Shabad stones and building material lying in the land, and submit the sanctioned plan and registered documents for verification of boundaries etc. and in spite of the petitioner submitting an explanation to that letter, the 2nd respondent is taking hasty steps to remove the stocks of the petitioner The learned Standing Counsel submits that the issue is already under consideration by the respondents. Since the petitioner is said to have already submitted explanation supported by necessary material, and considering the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the matter is under active consideration of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: ‘The respondents are directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner, and pass appropriate speaking orders thereon, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.’ Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 17th February, 2009 bcj