HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10536 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the immediate neighbour of the respondents 4 to 8 in IDA Gandhinagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that the respondents 4 to 8 have made constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 against the illegal construction made by the respondents 4 to 8, no action has been taken thereon. 2. A counter – affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand and 4 to 8 on the other. According to the respondents 1 to 3, a notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 was issued to respondents 4 to 8 on noticing certain deviations from the sanctioned plan and that the respondents 4 to 8 have filed O.S. No.19 of 2007 in the Court of the VI Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The order of status-quo, initially granted in I.A. No.9 of 2007, was vacated and thereupon CMA No.114 of 2009 was filed in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. An order of status-quo was said to have been passed in I.A. No.1552 of 2007 therein. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8. 4. The petitioner is under the impression that the respondents 1 to 3 did not take any steps against the respondents 4 to 8 as to the deviation from the sanctioned plan. The record, however, discloses that a notice under Section 452 of the HMC Act was issued and the respondents 4 to 8 have availed the remedy of approaching the Civil Court. The trial Court, initially, passed order of status-quo at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3, and that was vacated. Thereupon, respondents 4 to 8 have filed CMA No.114 of 2007. It is not known as to whether the CMA is still pending or whether the order of status-quo is operating. The petitioner can verify the matter and if necessary, get himself impleaded in the suit, so that, the trial Court would know his point of view also. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the proceedings, which are already pending before the Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J February 17, 2011. KTL