THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.914 OF 2011 DATED:18.11.2011 Between: K. Hemalatha … Appellant And P. Pavankumar and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.914 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellant is aggrieved by the direction given by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dt.20.10.2011 passed in W.P. No.22482 of 2011. 2. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner had made an allegation that the appellant had encroached the main road contrary to the master plan. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge passed the following order. “Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to measure the 100 feet Master plan road and the building of respondent No.4 in the presence of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and if it is found that respondent No.4 has encroached on the 100 feet Master Plan road and raised construction, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take action for removal of the said construction, despite pendency of the application for regularization under the Building Penalization Scheme, after following the procedure prescribed under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit which is still pending and therefore writ jurisdiction of this Court ought not to have been invoked. 5. We have heard the learned counsel in this regard and now it appears, and it is also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the civil suit does not pertain to the encroachment of the main road. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. 6. Insofar as the direction given by the learned single Judge is concerned, we find that to be totally innocuous. If any action has to be taken against the appellant, learned single Judge has made it clear that it has to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The order of the learned single Jude is quite clear in this regard and we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 6. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim applications are also dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 18-11-2011 bnr