THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 29410 OF 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the sixth respondent in raising illegal construction at premises bearing No.23-1-1031 situated at Moghulpura Kaman, Hyderabad and the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not taking any action against the sixth respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the illegal constructions raised by the sixth respondent in the aforesaid premises. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner and the sixth respondent lost their premises in the road widening between Charminar and Falaknuma (Hari Bowli Junction). After demolition, the sixth respondent retained an extent of about 13 feet width and 7 feet depth on southern side of house of petitioner. Petitioner surrendered about 4 feet width and 46 feet length land in his premises No.23-1-1030/5. After the demolition, the sixth respondent purchased adjacent mulgi bearing No.23-1-1031 from one Kashim and in the guise of repairing the old premises, she started raising a new construction without obtaining any sanction plan from the second respondent corporation and in fact, encroached upon the adjacent government land to an extent of 2 feet towards west side of house of petitioner. The seventh respondent, who is a Corporator from Mohgalpura Division of GHMC, has been abusing his authority and influenced the corporation authorities from not inspecting the construction taken up by the sixth respondent. Though the petitioner represented the matter before the respondents 2 to 4, no action has been initiated as the seventh respondent prevailed over the official respondents to see that no action is taken against the sixth respondent. The petitioner, being adjacent plot owner, is severely affected by the illegal actions of the sixth respondent with the connivance of official respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The sixth respondent filed counter affidavit denying averments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia as follows. She applied for permission for construction on 6.9.2010 by paying requisite fee and commenced construction on 26.11.2011 onwards i.e. after the mandatory 30 days period as per Section 437 of HMC Act, 1955 is over, and so, the construction cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner is harassing her to sell her property so that he gets abundant road access, and as he made illegal attempts to induct his henchmen as tenant by abusing her and trying to dispossess her, she filed Original Suit No.3979 of 2010 before the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and ad-interim injunction was granted in the said suit. The seventh respondent, being local Corporator, took initiative to prevent the petitioner, but the petitioner mis-projected him to be her sympathizer. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. The seventh respondent filed counter affidavit stating inter alia as follows. He is unnecessarily dragged into the civil controversy between the petitioner and the sixth respondent. When he, being a local Corporator, as a part of discharge of his duties, objected the illegal encroachment by the petitioner in the public way, he was dragged into this litigation. He has no knowledge as to how much extent the petitioner lost in road widening and when the sixth respondent commenced construction. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sixth respondent is making constructions without any sanctioned plan and encroached upon the adjacent government land to an extent of 2 feet towards west side of house of petitioner and that at the influence of the seventh respondent, who is a Corporator from Mohgalpura Division of GHMC, the corporation authorities are not taking any action, and that the petitioner, being adjacent plot owner, is severely affected by the illegal actions of the sixth respondent, and hence, he prays to issue direction as prayed for. 6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that as the sixth respondent is making constructions even after rejection of his application for construction permission, notice under Section 452 of the HMC Act, 1955 was issued to which the sixth respondent submitted his reply, and after considering the same, the corporation passed final order dated 7.6.2011 under Section 636 of the Act directing him to pull down the unauthorized constructions, and that the corporation addressed letter to local police seeking protection, and as the police did not provide protection, demolition could not be taken up, and that the corporation is pursuing with the matter, and hence, he prays reasonable time for demolition of the constructions in pursuance of the order dated 7.6.2011. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 stated that the petitioner gave false representation to the respondents 1 to 5 and that these respondents objected for illegal encroachment by the petitioner in public way. 8. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, the Assistant City Planner, Circle IV (South Zone), GHMC, Hyderabad (fourth respondent) submitted Action Taken Report, stating inter alia as follows: “After demolishing the affected portion in the road widening, 6th respondent has applied for permission vide file No.CSC/26283/ ACP/C4/GHMC/2010 seeking permission for construction of ground and 1st floor shops in premises No.23-1-1031, Panch Mohalla, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. The application was considered with reference to the building rules in force and rejected the same vide letter dated 19.9.2010. However, the 6th respondent filed O.S. No.3979 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad against S.A. Qadeer and by obtaining injunction started construction. Immediately, after noticing the construction, GHMC has issued show cause notice under section 452 of HMC Act on 20.11.2010 and the 6th respondent submitted reply with false allegations on 23.11.2010. After considering the reply submitted by 6th respondent, GHMC had issued final notice under section 636 of GHMC Act on 7.6.2011 and also addressed letter to the police seeking to provide protection and demolition is fixed on 27.6.2011. However, as the police did not provide protection, demolition could not be taken up. GHMC is pursuing the matter with Police seeking protection and till recent, due to Telangana bund and law and order problem, police are saying that they are not in a position to provide force. GHMC is pursuing the matter with police seeking necessary protection and illegal constructions of 6th respondent will be demolished by following due procedure.” So, from the Action Taken Report, it is clear that when the sixth respondent applied for permission for construction of ground and first floor, the second respondent corporation rejected the same vide letter dated 19.9.2010, but, the sixth respondent started construction after obtaining injunction from civil court, and thereafter, the corporation issued a notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to the sixth respondent, who gave his reply to the said notice and on considering his reply, the corporation passed final order dated 7.6.2011 under Section 636 of the Act ordering demolition. Therefore, the second respondent is following due process of law. The sixth respondent did not file any sanctioned plan for making the construction. As a matter of fact, the Corporation rejected the application for construction permission. Therefore, the constructions being made by the sixth respondent are unauthorized and without any sanctioned plan. 9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed directing the respondents 2 to 4 to act on the final order dated 7.6.2011 passed under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and remove the constructions unauthorisedly made by the sixth respondent in the premises in question bearing No.23-1- 1031 situated at Moghulpura Kaman, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks. No costs. ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J.) 21.12.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 29410 OF 2010 Date: 21.12.2011