HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22482 of 2011 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: P.Pavan Kumar ..... Petitioner AND: The Government of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.C.Krishnan Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in proceeding against the illegal constructions made by respondent No.4 on the road margin of T.S.No.50 as illegal and arbitrary. Even though time was granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on as many as four occasions, neither counter- affidavit is filed nor instructions are reported on behalf of the said respondents. Counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioner, who claims to be the neighbour of respondent No.4, is two fold, namely that respondent No.4 has constructed a palatial building without obtaining building permission and that she has encroached on the 100 feet Master plan road and raised construction of the said building. Respondent No.4 in her counter-affidavit while denying any such encroachment stated that she has applied for regularization of construction of the building under the Building Penalization Scheme on 27.05.2008. Even though the submission was made that building permission was given to respondent No.4 on 08.05.2008, Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for respondent No.4, conceded that there is material contradiction in the pleadings of respondent No.4 in paragraph No.9 and submitted that his client’s application for regularization is still pending. In the absence of any counter-affidavit by respondent Nos.2 and 3, controverting the claim of respondent No.4 that her application for regularization is pending, the said submission deserves acceptance. In support of his plea that respondent No.4 encroached on road margin and raised construction, the petitioner has filed endorsement No.69/2008/G, dated 24.04.2008, of the Commissioner of respondent No.2- Corporation, wherein while returning the application for building permission of respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that respondent No.4 has encroached on the 100 feet Master Plan road to the extent of 2.25 meters x 8.10 meters and raised construction. In the face of this document, the denial of respondent No.4 that she has encroached on the road margin needs to be examined by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to measure the 100 feet Master plan road and the building of respondent No.4 in the presence of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and if it is found that respondent No.4 has encroached on the 100 feet Master Plan road and raised construction, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take action for removal of the said construction, despite pendency of the application for regularization under the Building Penalization Scheme, after following the procedure prescribed under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.27431 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th October 2011 DR