IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21410 of 2003 Between: 1 MOHD. YOUSUF, S/O (LATE) MOHD. SHAIK AHMED, R/O H.NO.14-11-541 MANGALHAT, HYDERABAD. 2 ABIDA BEGYUM, W/O MOHD. YOUSUF H.NO14-11-541, MANGALHAT, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONERS AND ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, GRUHAKALPA, M.J.ROAD, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent to act in accordance with law and forbear from resorting to interference or demolition of the construction of builiding complex of the petitioner bearing Premises No4-8- 68/A/19, admeasuring 400 Sq.yds. situated at Putlibowli, Hyderabad without following the procedurle of law and without establishing its asserted title over the said property and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI C.V.RAJEEVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21410 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners allegedly purchased a house bearing No.4-8-68/A/19 (part of plot No.24), Putlibowli, Hyderabad, admeasuring 400 square yards under registered sale deeds dated 30.09.1988 and 15.10.1988 from Mohd.Iqbal and his mother, who got the property under a Will dated 23.12.1965 executed by one Syed Khaja Mahamood Ali. Petitioners allege that they obtained building permission from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) on 06.01.1995, and when they were constructing a new house, the Oﬃcials of the respondent came to their premises on 26.09.2003 and directed to stop construction. Therefore, they ﬁled the instant writ petition and obtained interim order. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled opposing the writ petition and the respondent claims that the property in question belongs to Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, which was taken over from MCH and duly fenced. It is also stated that even before action could be initiated for eviction of the petitioners as per the procedure contemplated under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity), the present writ petition is filed. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that there were proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in M.C.No.13 of 1965, on the ﬁle of the Court of the IV City Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, in which ﬁnding was recorded that third party was in possession of the property. Therefore, he submits that any interference without due process of law would be arbitrary and illegal. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that even before action was initiated for removing encroachments, the present writ petition is ﬁled, and therefore, this Court may not entertain the writ petition. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the aﬃdavit, which contains cause of action would show that very vague allegations are made by the petitioners. Secondly, it appears, before approaching this Court, petitioners made a representation to the Vice-Chairman of respondent on 26.09.2003, and even before the same could be acted upon, they rushed to this Court complaining that there is a threat of stoppage of construction. When the respondent claims property as belonging to it, a person in encroachment, however strong to the claim of his title may be, ought to have waited before a ﬁnal decision is taken by Andhra Pradesh Housing Board under Section 52 of the Act. If such person approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not only prevent the statutory authorities from proceeding according to the statute, but also postpone the decision as to nature of the property. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived. It shall be open to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board to initiate action under Section 52 of the Act and proceed further. As the allegation that Oﬃcials of the respondent stopped construction is denied speciﬁcally in the counter aﬃdavit, this Court is not inclined to make any order, which would amount to injuncting respondent from proceeding as per the statute. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.09.2008 vs To 1. The Vice-Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}