THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.2198 of 2009 04-02-2010 BETWEEN; P.Narsaiah son of P.Mallaiah ...Petitioner vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.2198 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) A direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to ensure that the illegal scrap iron business by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in an assigned plot No.10-4-771/22, Nehrunagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad, is the relief sought herein. The petitioner is a resident in the neighbourhood of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 who are alleged to be creating noise pollution including in the night hours by carrying on scrap business in the premises above mentioned. It is also alleged that the premises was originally assigned to one Smt.Satyamma wife of Balaiah in an extent of 38 square yards on encroachment accreted to 55 square yards. Smt.Satyamma sold the property under a notarised document to respondent Nos.5 and 6 wherein these respondents without any trade licence or other permissions are carrying on scrap business creating severe noise pollution including during night hours is the allegation. The District Collector, Hyderabad has filed a counter-affidavit dated 21-04-2009 stating that the 5th respondent had unlawfully purchased the plot in question from the original assignee- Smt.Satyamma and therefore action was initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977 to evict the 5th respondent. The 1st respondent has filed an additional affidavit on 22-12-2009 stating that after due process, under the provisions of the 1977 Act the assignment in favour of Smt.Satyamma was cancelled and a copy thereof was served on the 5th respondent. This counter further states that the Revenue Inspector concerned under a panchanama dated 01.07.2009 had taken possession of the plot in question from the 5th respondent and thereafter respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not conducting any scrap business in the premises. On the orders of the 1st respondent, the MRO inspected the locality and submitted a report stating that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not pursuing any scrap business since the last six months and that ever since their eviction in July 2009, the plot in question is not in occupation. The above assertion having been contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court by the order dated 23.12.2009 appointed Mrs.A.Deepthi Advocate as a Commissioner of this Court to inspect the premises and submit a report. The learned Advocate Commisser has submitted a report dated 23.01.2010. To the extent relevant and material, the report of the Commissioner states that on inspection of the property on 23.01.2010, it is observed that one Shah Mohd.Khan is carrying scrap trade on the footpath in front of his house which is adjacent to the premises in question. Insofar as the premises in question is concerned, the report of the Commissioner states that physical possession appears to have been taken of the premises from the non-official respondents on 01-07-2009 under a panchanama whose signatories however are not residents of that locality. When the locks of the premises were opened, two iron racks fitted to the side- walls of the shop and one Almirah were found in the premises, which the 5th respondent had stated to the Commissioner could not be removed at the time of taking possession of the plot. The report further states that local enquiries reveal that though 5th and 6th respondents are not in physical possession and no scrap trade is carrying on therein now, some residents of that locality had stated that scrap trade was being carried out by respondent Nos.5 and 6 by dumping the materials through an opening created by breaking the side-wall of the premises and also from the adjacent building and that the materials are being lifted in gunny bags during night time. The materials are being moved out through the rear side 4 feet passage and are being loaded on to waiting trucks on the road, which is situated at the end of the passage. The report states that the enquiry with the residents of the locality reveals that there is no serious noise pollution or business activity carried on during night hours now. In the circumstances, as revealed by the Commissioner’s report, the substantive grievance of the petitioner does not survive for adjudication. The official respondents may consider either re-erecting the broken wall of the premises in question or to demolish the premises so as to avoid further complaints of noise pollution from any scrap business from the premises in question. By the order of this Court dated 23-12-2009, while appointing Mrs.A.Deepthi as an Advocate Commissioner, we directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- into the Registry to meet the incidental expenses of the learned Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Registry has not yet accepted the said deposit and that he may be permitted to pay the amount to the learned Advocate Commissioner directly. The learned Advocate Commissioner states that she has received the amount from the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also passed on a receipt in acknowledgment thereof. In the circumstances stated above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 4th FEBRUARY 2010. TSNR