IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21214 of 2002 Between: Madipalli Srinivas Goud, S/o. Ramagoud, R/o. 17/2, Old Bus Stand Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P.RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 18-09-2002 and 23-09-2002 passed under Sections 228(1) and 228(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 respectively by the respondent. Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Radhakrishna, leanred Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner’s father is claimed to have purchased an extent of Ac.0.16 cents of land in Survey No.96/AA of Mandamarri Village, Adilabad District for a consideration of Rs.2,500/- by means of a simple sale deed from its original owner by name U.Murahari, S/o Lingaiah. The petitioner claims that the said property fell to his share in the family settlement. The petitioner further averred that the vendor filed O.S.No.144 of 1993 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and other persons, who are made parties to the suit, from interfering with the peaceful possession of the said land and that on the advice of the elders, a compromise was entered into on 11-09-1994, which was reduced to writing, and that despite the same, the said Murahari obtained an ex parte decree on 07-07-1997. As the petitioner’s efforts to get the decree set aside did not fructify, he filed CRP No.3730 of 2001, wherein this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the ex parte decree. It is the further case of the petitioner that he made an application to the respondent Municipality in the year 1997, for granting permission for construction of a house. As the petitioner could not produce the registered sale deed, the said application was not pursued. It is his case that in order to protect his possession, he raised a temporary tin shed in the year 1997 itself, and has been carrying on his coconut business therefrom. By the impugned orders, the respondent called upon the petitioner to remove the said temporary structure. The petitioner claimed that after receipt of the notice, issued under Section 228(1) of the Act, he made an application on 23-09-2002 for grant of building permission. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the said representation, the final order purported to have been passed on 23-09-2002 was served on him on 21-10-2002. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is, inter alia, mentioned that the petitioner raised the structure without obtaining the permission from the respondent and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent, in exercise of its statutory power, do not suffer from any illegality. At the hearing, Sri P.Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, had shown certain photographs, which clearly show that what was raised by the petitioner is a purely temporary shed with tin roof and sides covered with bamboo laced material. The size of the structure is also very tiny. The fact that the petitioner made an application for grant of permission for raising pucca structure is not disputed by the respondent. It is also admitted that the application said to have been filed by the petitioner on 23-09-2002 for granting permission is not so far disposed of by the respondent. The respondent is not a party to the suit between the petitioner and the legal heirs of his alleged vendor. Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, without going into the claim of the petitioner regarding his right to get the plan approved, with the direction to the respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner filed for approval of the plan for raising a structure, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I also deem it appropriate that in the interests of justice the respondent shall not remove the small temporary structure, which is shown to be in existence on the land, in dispute, till the disposal of the petitioner’s application. Ordered accordingly. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th March, 2009 vrn