IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22081 of 2002 Between: 1 V.Ganapathi Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy R/o H.No.10-1-222, Bhagyanagar Ward No.32,Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar District. 2 Smt.Anabheri Prameela Devi, W/o A.V.Laxmana Rao, R/o H.No.10-1-236, Bhagyanagar Ward No.32,Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Town and Country Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Director of Town and Country Planning, HUDA Complex, Hanumakonda, Warangal 4 The Municipal Commissioner, Karimnagar Muinicipality, Karimnagar District. 5 Sri Kanakaiah Bhagyanagar, Ward No.32, Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar, Karimnagar (Now residing at Rekurthi (V) of Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar. 6 Smt. Dharmaji, W/o Praveen Rao, Bhagyanagar, Ward No.32, Mankamma Thota, Karimnaga, Karimnagar. .....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 an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 4th respondent in not initiating any action upon the illegal constructions of the 5th and 6th respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 4th respondent to demolish the illegal constructions of the 5th and 6th Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.22081 of 2002 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the fourth respondent in not initiating any action upon the illegal constructions allegedly made by respondent Nos.5 and 6. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased open plots in Survey No.1159/A situated at Mankamma Thota (presently Bhagyanagar) during 1979 under registered sale deeds and constructed residential houses. It is stated that as there were certain deviations from the sanctioned plans, on applications made by them, the same were regularized. It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondent Nos.5 and 6, who have sites adjacent to the road, which is abutting the houses of the petitioners, are making constructions by encroaching 33’ road covered by Road Development Plan 6/90. No counter affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent- Municipal Commissioner. A counter affidavit is filed by the sixth respondent along with letter No.G1/9487/2002, dated 01.05.2002, addressed by the fourth respondent, the Municipal Commissioner of Karimnagar Municipality, to the Director of Town & Country Planning, A.P., Hyderabad, denying existence of any such road of 33’ covered by R.D.P.6/90 and illegal constructions as alleged by the petitioners. From a perusal of the letter, dated 01.05.2002, addressed by the fourth respondent-Municipal Commissioner, it is clear that there was no such approved road by the Municipal Council and the layout, in which the plots of the fifth and sixth respondents were located was sanctioned prior to preparation of R.D.P.6/90. In view of the averments in the counter affidavit of the sixth respondent and in view of the letter of the fourth respondent, dated 01.05.2002, there is a factual dispute with regard to the width of the road itself. In view of the factual dispute, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the same in the absence of any clear material. In any event, it is stated that the sixth respondent has made an application seeking permission to construct house and as there was no objection, he has proceeded with the construction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fourth respondent has not acted on the alleged encroachments. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt.17.04.2009 VGB