IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25452 of 2007 Between: Borugula Mohammad Ali Khan S/o. Late Beeran Sab D.No. 10-728, Nagaraju Street, Valisab Road, Kadiri, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur District. 2 The Assistant Executive Engineer (R & B) N.H. Section, Kadiri, Anantapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 Smt. Kanikaram Sarada W/o.K. Ramakrishna D.No. 9/567, Zeevimanu Circle, RayachotiRoad, Kadiri Town, Aantapur District. 5 K. Medhana Gangapa S/o.M. Chinnappa D.No. 9/563, Zeevimanu Circle, RayachotiRoad, Kadiri Town, Aantapur District. 6 D. Gangadhra S/o.D. Sanjappa D.No. 9/563, Zeevimanu Circle, Rayachoti Road, Kadiri Town, Aantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not to demolishing the partial portion i.e, pucca Buildings No.s 3 to 5 as per notice issued by 2nd respondent in Notice No. 9K/AEE(NH-I) 07 dt. 2-7-07 as illegal, arbitrary, and discremenation and to direct the 2nd respondent to demolish the rest of pucca buildings No. 3 to 5 shown in notice issued by 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.INENIVENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.25452 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Borugula Mohammad Ali Khan, assailing the inaction of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Kadiri, in demolishing the constructions made by Smt.Kanikaram Sarada-– respondent No.4, K.Medhana Gangappa –respondent No.5 and D.Gangadhara –respondent No.6 despite notice No.9K/AEE (NH) 07 dated 02-07-2007. 2. Rule nisi came to be issued on 08-02-2008. 3. Respondents 1 and 3 filed counter affidavit. Respondent No.5 filed separate counter affidavit. 4. One Reddappa has sworn to the counter ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the constructions on the site encroached by respondents 4 to 6 could not be taken because of pendency of W.P.No.22873 of 2007. Para 5 of the counter aﬃdavit need to be noted and it is thus: “ I submit that because of the pendency of the writ petition 22873 of 2007 further demolition of the encroached buildings constructed by the respondents 4 to 6 could not be taken up and now in view of the dismissal of the writ petition further steps are being taken for demolition of the structures that were raised by the respondents 4 to 6 area for widening of the National High Way No. 205.” 5. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the ﬁfth respondent, it is stated that after the dismissal of W.P.No.22873 of 2007 on 6-11-2007, they removed two portions as per the requirement of the second respondent herein. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 3, the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 4 to 6 have not demolished the constructions made on the encroached portions. Whereas it is asserted by respondents 4 to 6 that they have removed 2 portions to pave way for laying road to meet the present demand. In the counter aﬃdavit of respondents 1 and 3, it is stated that encroachments have been partially removed and further progress in the removal of encroachment could not be made because of the pendency of W.P.No.22873 of 2007. 8. It is not in controversy that writ petition 22873 of 2007 ended in dismissal on 6.11.2007.. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment for the third respondent to proceed with the removal of the constructions made by respondents 4 to 6 on the encroached portions. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to remove the constructions made by the respondents 4 to 6 on encroached portions within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 02-09-2008 Note: C.C. in one week. B/o. Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}