IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4863 of 2006 Between: Sri Nalla Pochamma Temple Committee, Regd.No.2513, being rep.,by its General Secretary A.Shankar, s/o Sri Jagannatha Swamy, r/o H.No.2-4-62, Near Select Talkies, Machabolarum, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District at Alwal. 2 The Secretary to Government, Department of Municipal Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner, Vigilance and Enforcement, State of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund, 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent Municipality in preventing the unauthorized constructions in Sy.No.131 and 132 Ramalingeshwara Nagar of Machabolarum Village, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and failure to protect the roads and parks earmarked for the public apart from the burial ground situated in Ramalingeshwara Nagar as being violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to take expeditious action to protect the parks, public roads and burial grounds situated in the aforesaid locality while taking appropriate departmental action against the staﬀ concerned and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondents.: MR. R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL OF GHMC. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri Nalla Pochamma Temple Committee, represented by its General Secretary A.Shankar assailing the inaction of the 1st respondent in preventing the unauthorized constructions in Survey Nos.131 and 132 of Ramalingeshwara Nagar of Machabolarum village, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The deponent of the writ aﬃdavit claims to be the General Secretary of the petitioner-Temple Committee. He submitted a representation to the 1st respondent complaining unauthorized constructions on the road leading to the graveyard. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 13.03.2006. The 1st respondent entered appearance through its Standing Counsel and filed counter-affidavit. 4. V.V.Manohar, Commissioner, Alwal Municipality, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that constructions made by one D.Satyanarayana have been removed. Para.4 of the counter- affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “4. It is respectfully submitted that afterwards, issued Notice to the above individual vide Notice No.G2/382/2006, dt.27.3.2006 to submit ownership documents along with link documents about disputed site within (3) days, failing which it will be deemed that ownership title and follow up action u/s.192 of A.P.M.Act, 1965, and removal of encroachments and the removal charges will be collected from the encroachers. In response the individual has submitted Sale Deed document No.1568/1999, dt.24.6.1999. Since permission issued to the individual is in the year of 1999 and the same may be lapsed 3 years and after lapsing the time renewal has to be taken from the oﬃce of Respondent No.1. Since the individual has not taken any renewal, and hence the unauthorized basement columns have been removed. Hence, the contentions made by the petitioner that the staff of the office of the Respondent No.1 have colluded with the realtors and did not check the illegal construction, that in spite of complaints by petitioners, this respondent has not taken any action etc., is not correct and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the responsibility of the 1st respondent to check the unauthorized constructions that are being made on the approach road to the graveyard. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the oﬃcials of the 1st respondent had already removed the constructions made by one D.Satyanarayana and as on this day no constructions exist preventing access to the graveyard. 8. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 1 st respondent, it is speciﬁcally stated that the constructions made by one D.Satyanarayana have been removed and the graveyard is well protected by a compound wall. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has not initiated any action against the illegal constructions made by one D.Satyanarayana. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd October, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}