IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3233 of 2009 Between: Dwaraka nagar Residents Association, Regd.No.1866/1992, Dwarakanagar, Rep by its Secretary C.Sai Prasad, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Manamus declaring in action of the Respondent Corporation in developing the park in accordance with LP No.36/75 situated in Dwarakanagar Colony of Nizamabad, and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate steps to develop the park in the said lay out or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.H.R.CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The case of the petitioner-Dwarakanagar Residents Association is that the residents of Dwarakanagar purchased house-sites in the layout vide L.P.NO.36/75 with an anticipation that Nizamabad Municipality would be upgraded as Corporation and thereby civil amenities would be improved. As per the layout, an extent of 2200 sq. yards of land is earmarked for the purpose of public park, particularly, to meet the recreational demands of the residents of Dwarakanagar, but the respondent-Corporation did not take steps to protect the land allotted to the park by way of fencing it nor developed into a public park, which resulted in the illegal encroachment by some third parties. The encroachers not only occupied the area allotted to the public park, but also encroached the public road, which is adjacent to the park with their personal and domestic belongings, thereby the residents of Dwarakanagar are finding it difficult to make a living in that area. While so, when the residents of Dwarakanagar pressurized the encroachers to vacate the land in January, 1994, the encroachers filed O.S.No.7 of 1994, and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, vide judgment dated 16.4.2001, decreed the suit restraining the respondent-Commissioner from interfering with the possession of the encroachers and further observed that the respondent can proceed against the encroachers by following due process of law in case he wants to get them evicted of the suit property. Then, the residents of the petitioner-association submitted a representation dated 20.11.2008 requesting the respondent to evict the encroachers from the land in question by following due process of law, but the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent has neither evicted the encroachers from the land in question nor passed any orders thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Nizamabad Municipality. According to Section 185 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act”), the land earmarked for public utilities such as park etc., shall not be alienated for any other purpose. The purport of this provision, as also observed by the trial Court in its judgment, is that the respondent-Commissioner is empowered to protect the land earmarked for public utilities, and admittedly, the representation dated 20.11.2008 made by the residents of the petitioner-association requesting him to protect the land earmarked for public utilities, is pending consideration. In view of the provision contemplated under the Act and having regard to the fact that the representation dated 20.11.2008, which is said to have been made by the residents of the petitioner-association is pending consideration before the respondent, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent-Commissioner, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the representation dated 20.11.2008 said to have been made by the petitioner- association and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj