THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17527 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. In the writ petition, it is stated that the first petitioner is the owner of house bearing No.1-4-881/4 situated at SBH Colony, Gandhinagar, New Bakaram, Hyderabad, and the second petitioner is his neighbourer. It is their grievance that there is an illegal construction by the third respondent on the dead end of 20 feet road in front of their house. In spite of the same, no action is being taken by respondents 1 and 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-9, Central Zone of the first respondent, it is stated that pursuant to the observations made by this Court on the last date of hearing, the Section Officer of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was deputed to ascertain whether the third respondent has constructed a ‘Payal’ on the road in question and to know whether any prayers are being offered to the tree, which is located in the middle of the Payal. It is further stated that the Section Officer, in-charge of the area, inspected the disputed site on 18.09.2010 and prepared a status report and the same was filed before this Court. As per the report, a big old Neem Tree, protected with ‘Payal’, is existing at the dead end of the area and adjacent to the said tree, a compound wall is existing and the enquiry made by him revealed that the said Payal was constructed long back by the locality people and they have been offering prayers to the tree, where there existed ‘Pamula Putta’ before erection of the Payal. It is also stated that during enquiry, it is established that some kind of poojas are being performed by the local people to the said Tree. In view of the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-9, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the allegation of the petitioners that such Payal was constructed by the third respondent obstructing pathway to their house appears to be incorrect. As no illegal constructions are made by the third respondent on the disputed site, question of directing respondents 1 and 2 to take action for removal of such unauthorized constructions does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni