THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19028 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner states that he purchased plot No.126 admeasuring 230 sq.yards, being part of a lay-out sanctioned in favour of the Balaji Venkateswara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., in Sy.No.132 of Yousufguda Village of Kukatpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The erstwhile Kukatpally Municipality and thereafter the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the 1st respondent herein, initiated various steps against the petitioner alleging that he is encroached an area, which formed part of road under the sanctioned lay-out. The petitioner at one point of time approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11658 of 1991, and thereafter filed O.S.No.1162 of 2004 in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for injunction. The suit is said to have been decreed ex parte, on 21-02-2005. The respondents issued a notice dated 05-09-2007, under Section 402 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), requiring the petitioner to remove the construction undertaken by him by encroaching into the road portion. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the petitioner encroached road portion and the proceedings were initiated under the relevant provisions of law. It is also stated that the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.1162 of 2004 has been set aside, and that the suit is pending trial. Heard Sri G. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. There is a serious dispute as to the location of the property, in which the petitioner is said to have undertaken the construction. The petitioner claims that he did not encroach into any road portion, and is undertaking construction only in the plot, that was purchased by him from out of the lay-out. The respondents, on the other hand, assert that the encroachment had taken place and proceedings under Section 402 of the Act were initiated. The material placed before this Court does not enable it to record a clear finding on the question, as to whether the petitioner had encroached into any road portion, at all. For that purpose, authenticated copy of the lay-out, and the material depicting the ground situation must be examined. As of now, the suit filed by the petitioner is pending. Though the scope of it is limited, the question, referred to above, can be dealt with in the suit itself, and depending on the finding, that may be recorded by the Court, the parties can work out remedies. An additional issue can be required to be framed by the trial Court, and the parties be permitted to adduce evidence. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned notice is set aside. It is directed that, a) the Court in which O.S.No.1162 of 2004 is pending, shall frame an additional issue, viz., whether the plaintiff has encroached into any portion of the road, shown in the lay-out, sanctioned by the competent authority; b) the parties shall place before the trial Court, a certified or authenticated copy of the lay-out, as well as the plan, depicting the situation, that is obtaining as of now; c) depending on the outcome of the suit, and the findings that may be recorded by the trial Court, the parties shall work out remedies; and d) till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties, over the said property in question. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-02-2011. KO