IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.11800 of 2009 Between: Mrs. G. Vinitha Reddy W/o. G. Sadaya Veer Reddy R/o. H.No. 8-2-686/7/8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad. 2 Maste Shourya Gupta Rep. by Namita Gupta R/o. H.No.8-2-686/B/9, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue direction or writ more particularly writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 herein to enquire into the objection petition dated 04-06-2009 filed by the Writ Petitioner herein before issuing any No objection certificate to the Respondent No.2 herein and to issue any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper under the circumstances of this case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PULLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.11800 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides. According to the petitioner, she is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing No.8-2-686/7/8, admeasuring 459 sq.yards, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4114/2002 dated 25.11.2002. It is her case that the 2nd respondent is her immediate neighbour and he, through his father, has encroached into her premises on the northern side and constructed compound wall, and though herself and her husband have been raising objections and asking to remove the encroachment, the 2nd respondent and his father have been postponing the matter stating that they will get the area measured and, if any encroachment is found to have been made, then they will vacate that portion. While that being so, the 2nd respondent applied to the 1st respondent- District Collector, Hyderabad, for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the area within the compound wall i.e. for the area more than what was purchased by him. On coming to know the same, the petitioner filed an objection petition dated 04.06.2009 before the 1st respondent, bringing to his notice the encroachment made by the 2nd respondent, and requested him to enquire into the matter. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is making attempts to get the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the 1st respondent, without her objection petition being enquired into and without an opportunity of hearing being given to her, and if the 2nd respondent is succeeded in such attempts, she will be deprived of her valuable property. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the objection petition filed by the petitioner on 04.06.2009 in File No.11/19479/2008, before issuing ‘No Objection Certificate’, if any, in favour of the 2nd respondent. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 17th June, 2009. Note: Issue CC in three days. BO IBL