IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22535 of 2008 Between: Samala Sadanandam, S/o. Late Chennaiah, R/o. New Shrayampet Village, Hanmakonda Village, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Vice Chairman, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. 3 Manjeera Education Society, Rep by its President B. Shravan Kumar, S/o. Narotham Reddy, aged 42 years, Business, H.No. 23-6- 203/2, Hunter Road, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any steps on the representation dated 24-9-2007 made by the petitioner for initiation of criminal proceedings against the 3rd respondent for the illegal acts committed in obtaining the change of land use permission from respondents 1 and 2 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the 3rd respondent by filing a criminal complaint forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: G.P.FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR.G.VISHWESHWAR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KUDA. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22535 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Samala Sadanandam assailing the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in initiating proceedings against respondent No.3 for making certain interpolations with regard to the extent of the land in document No.271/99, dated 23.01.1999. 2. The writ affidavit averments, in brief, are: Late Chennaiah, the father of the petitioner, was the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.856 admeasuring Ac.1.07 gts. situated at Shyampet, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. He sold part of the land to Manjeera Educational Society-3rd respondent under three separate registered sale deeds. Particulars of the sale deeds are:- Sl.No. Document No. Date Extent 1. 271/99 23.01.1999 3025 sq. yards 2. 742/2000 23.01.1999 606 sq. yards 3. 747/99 23.01.1999 604 sq. yards It is stated that respondent No.3 interpolated the extent of the land in document No.271/99 as “3282” sq. yards in place of “3025” sq. yards and obtained building permission from the respondents. Certain other contentions mentioned in the writ affidavit are not required to be detailed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel for K.U.D.A. received notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made representations to respondent No.2 to initiate necessary action on the interpolation made by respondent No.3, in document No.271/99, and there being no action on the part of respondent No.2, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. As seen from the writ aﬃdavit, a suit being O.S.No.1421/05 is pending on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, wherein respondent No.3 herein is one of the defendants in the said suit. If it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 made interpolation in the document said to have been executed by his father, he is at liberty to initiate necessary civil and criminal action against the concerned persons. There is no public law element involved in the writ petition warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage, reserving the aforesaid liberty. No costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 16.10.2008 v v