THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 20492 of 2010 Dated: 25.08.2010 Between: Mohd. Sharif, Karimnagar. … Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Karimnagar and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 20492 of 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar in not taking the necessary steps to remove the balconies along with doors constructed by the 2nd respondent in House No.2-7-555, Mukarampura, Karimnagar is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the petitioner purchased a site admeasuring Ac.0.16 guntas and 6 yards situated in Mukarampura, Karimnagar on 11.06.1970 under a registered sale deed, wherein he had constructed two houses and living with his family. It is stated that the 170 square yards out of the above said land purchased by the petitioner was sold to the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent while constructing a house in the said 170 square yards, did not leave any open space as required under the provisions of the Municipalities Act and the Rules made therein. It is also alleged that the construction made by the 2nd respondent was contrary to the sanction plan as well as the zoning regulations. In spite of the objection raised by the petitioner as the 2nd respondent proceeded with the illegal constructions, it is stated that the petitioner had made a complaint before the 1st respondent on 22.07.2010 requesting to cause an inspection and remove the balconies extended up to the boundary wall. Alleging that the 1st respondent failed to consider the petitioner’s representation, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Corporation. As the material available on record shows that the petitioner’s complaint dated 22.07.2010 was acknowledged by the Office of the 1st respondent- Corporation, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation stated that the same would be considered and appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s complaint dated 22.07.2010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the 2nd respondent to rebut the allegations. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 25.08.2010 KLP