IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.6 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.12.2007 in Writ Petition No.21972 of 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Hussain Khan, S/o. Rahman Khan R/o. H.No.2-3-789, Golnaka , Amberpet, Hyderabad ....Appellant And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Secretary for Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (A2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer (Now M.D./General Manager), Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works, Hyderabad. 3. The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 4. Kalyan Nagar Co-op.Housing Society, represented by its Secretary, 10-1-635, Chintal Basti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3: Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri N. Rajeswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.4 : None. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) One Mir Fazeelat Hussain had ﬁled Writ Petition No.11547 of 1988, which had been ﬁnally decided on 5th October, 1993, whereby the ﬁrst respondent was directed to give notice to the said petitioner as also to respondent No.4 and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and to decide whether the property in question was part of the sale made in favour of the fourth respondent Society. The case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the order passed in the afore-stated petition had not been complied with. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition by observing that appropriate action for execution of the order should have been taken instead of ﬁling a fresh writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th December, 2007, the present appeal has been filed. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned Government Pleader has placed on record a copy of letter dated 18th May, 1999 showing that the order passed in Writ Petition No.11547 of 1988 had been complied with. The said letter was addressed to Smt. Khatoo Bee, mother of the appellant as the appellant was litigating in respect of the land belonging to his mother. Similarly, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 Board had also addressed a letter dated 10th June, 2002 sending communication to the learned Advocate for the appellant namely, Sri Mohd. Gulam Hussain. A copy of the said letter is also placed on record. From the said facts stated hereinabove, it appears that the concerned authorities have taken action in pursuance of the order passed in Writ Petition No.11547 of 1988. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11547 of 1988 has not been complied with in its strict sense. Be that as it may, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the action which has been taken by the concerned authorities by alleging that the order has not been properly complied with. The learned Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the letters which have been referred to hereinabove have not been communicated either to the mother of the appellant or to himself. The afore-stated reason would not survive now as copies of the above letters have already been given to the learned Advocate for the appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal. Further, the property in question was in the name of Smt. Khatoon Bee, mother of the appellant and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant has no locus standi to ﬁle the petition. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that as the mother of the appellant has already expired, the appellant has inherited the said property. If it is so, in our opinion, the appellant will have a right to take appropriate action provided he has inherited the property and he is the owner or co-owner of the property. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not see any substance in the appeal as we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 27th August, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. ….REGISTRAR To 1. The Secretary, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (A2) Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The General Manager, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 4. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration, s High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5. Two C.D. copies. ARS