IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6506 of 2008 Between: Purushotham Das Chandak, S/o. late Geesumal, R/o. 7-1-45/14, Mahesh Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary, M.A. and U.D. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 Boddam Mallesh Yadav, S/o. lae Boddam Komaraiah, R/o. H.No. 7-1-159, Ameerpet, 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 an appropriate Writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to pass orders on representation dated 5-9-2007, 2-11-2007 (Telegram), 5- 11-2007, 12-11-2007, 6-12-2007, 13-12-2007 and 5-3-2008 and consequently direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 to demolish the unauthorized, illegal construction made by the 3rd respondent in premises bearing No. 7-1-159, in Survey No. 33, Ameerpet, Hyderabad forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JALAKAM.SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6506 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Purushotham Das Chandak assailing the inaction of the respondents No.1 and 2 in removing the unauthorized constructions made by Boddam Mallesh Yadav-3rd respondent, despite repeated representations dated 5-9-2007, 2-11-2007, 5-11-2007, 12-11-2007, 6-12-2007, 13-12-2007 and 5-3-2008. 2. This is second round of litigation with regard to the construction allegedly made by 3rd respondent in violation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules framed therein and also encroachment of the Government land. 3. P. Sridhar and four others filed W.P.No. 5682 of 2003 and submitted representations complaining the inaction of the official respondents with regard to the illegal constructions and encroachment on Government land by B.Mallesh Yadav. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 2-4-2004. The operative portion of the order passed in the writ petition reads as hereunder. “Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that no further or other direction deserves to be issued, except directing the 3rd respondent to ensure that after due notice to 5th respondent, Mr. B. Mallesh Yadav, land owned by 5th respondent is got ascertained and earmarked. In case, as a result of such inspection, it is found that Respondent No.5 has entered upon the Government land, it will be for the respondents 2 and 3 to take up the matter to protect the government land by initiating proceedings under the relevant law for getting evicted, and, of course, after demolition, if any, from the Government land. In the process of demarcation and identification of the property of the 5th respondent, Respondent NO.3 shall also ensure that notice is issued to the first respondent, and, the first respondent will also fully cooperate with respondents 2 and 3, in case, ultimately, it is found that Respondent No.5 is found to have encroached any area other than the area of his own. The District Collector shall ensure that endeavour will be made that the above exercise will be completed within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, and, report is filed. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. “. 4. The grievance in the present writ petition is that the respondents NO. 1 and 2 are not taking any action with regard to the removal of the encroachment and the illegal constructions made by the 3rd Respondent. 5. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 27-3-2008 while ordering notice before admission, the status report has been called for from the 2nd Respondent. In compliance of the order, the 2nd Respondent filed status report detailing the steps taken for removal of unauthorized constructions and also filing of two applications by the 3rd respondent, one claiming benefit under G.O.Ms.No.901 and another claiming G.O.Ms.No. 166. The third respondent filed objections to the status report. 6. 3rd Respondent filed counter affidavit. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 and 2. and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner is neither the resident of the locality nor the constructions have been made in his land. I do not see any substance in his contention since the writ petition is filed complaining non-performance of the legal duty bestowed on the respondents 1 and 2 in removing the unauthorized constructions and encroachments made by the 3rd respondent. 9. A fact remains that necessary action has been initiated for removal of unauthorized constructions allegedly made by the 3rd Respondent. While the proceedings are in progress, the 3rd Respondent filed two applications claiming benefit under G.O.Ms.No.901 and G.O.Ms.No. 166. Both the applications are stated to be pending. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to continue the process of removal of the unauthorized constructions and encroachments made by the 3rd respondent after the disposal of the two applications filed by the petitioner claiming benefit under G.O.Ms. No.901 and G.O.Ms.No.166. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 16th July, 2008. Note: C.C. in a week B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6506 OF 2008 16th July, 2008.