IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28074 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Jitender S/o. K. Kishanji, H.No.3-5-3, Hyderguda Village & Post Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 K. Kishanji S/o. Late K. Balaji, H.No.3-5-3, Hyderguda Village & Post Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. 5 Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Rangareddy District. 6 The Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer), Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. 7 The Chairman, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (formerly HUDA), 6-3-1190, Greenlands, Hyderabad. 8 Sunrise Homes Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Ch. Suresh Goud Annapurna Buildings, Street No.11, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 action of the respondents 1 to 7 in not taking any action on the representations made by the petitioner to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 16.07.2008, 10.09.2008, 06.10.2008, 17.10.2008, 17.10.2008, 03.11.2008, 12.11.2008, 17.11.2008, 22.11.2008, 15.12.2008 to the HMDA authorities on 16.07.2008, 25.08.2008, 18.09.2008, 22.11.2008 and to the authorities of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 16.07.2008, 06.08.2008, 12.08.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental Rights warranted under Constitution of India and grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VINAY KAMISETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the land in Sy.No.106 and 107 to an extent of Ac.3.11 guntas situated at Upparapalli Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. While so, the 8th respondent has applied for grant of permission for lay out in certain survey numbers of Upparapally village for house plots to the official respondents, who in turn, accorded permission to him for the lay out under the name and style ‘Sunrise Villas’. The grievance of the petitioners is that on account of sanctioning of said layout, there is a conversion of existing Nala and the water course is changed from its original way to the lands of the petitioners and others. Though this fact was brought to the notice of the official respondents, they have not initiated any action and hence, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. Apparently, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and gave number of representations bringing out to the notice of the respondent-authorities, but no action has been initiated. When once the said representations are given by the petitioners stating that there is encroachment of Nala, the authorities are duty bound to hold an enquiry and decide as to whether there is any encroachments or the permission accorded to the 8th respondent in the name and style ‘Sunrise Villas’ is in accordance with law or not. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 6 to cause a detailed enquiry and decide as to whether the course of the Nala is halted on account of the said permission given to the 8th respondent. As this Court is directing the official respondents to hold an enquiry, the usual notice to the unofficial respondent i.e., 8th respondent is hereby dispensed with and it is made clear that before considering the said representations submitted by the petitioners, the respondent-authorities shall put the 8th respondent on notice and afford him an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, pass necessary orders. No costs. __________ 24-12-2008 Note: Issue CC by 10 days. (B.O) rkk