IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2810 of 2008 Between: 1 C. Yadaiah, s/o. C. Mallaiah, R/o. 6-3-788/42, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. C. Chandramma, W/o. C. Yadaiah, R/o. 6-3-788/42, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, having its office at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Rep by its Chief Commissioner 2 Mohd Omar Ali, S/o. Mohd. Vazeer, r/o. 6-3-834/C, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 Mohd Bari, S/o. Kareem, r/o. 6-3-788/1, Ganeshnagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 4 Basheer, S/o. Kareem, r/o. 6-3-788/1, Ganeshnagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction declaring the action of the first respondent in not acting upon the complaint dt. 5-2-2008 made by petitioners for demolition of structures raised by Respondents No. 2 to 4 in plot No. 41 of Durganagar Coop Housing Society, situated in Sy.Nos. 185 and 186 of Punjagutta Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, as illegal and arbitrary, and to consequently direct the first respondent to forthwith act upon the representation dt. 5-2-2008 of the petitioners and demolish the structures, in plot No. 41 mentioned above ; award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2810 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are three in numbers, with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the action of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad-1st Respondent in not acting upon the complaint, dated 5-2-2008 made by them for demolition of the structures raised by Mohd. Omar Ali, Mohd. Bari and Basheer- Respondents NO. 2 to 4 in plot NO. 42 of Durganagar Co-operative Housing Society as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is as follows: The petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of House bearing No. 6-3-788/42, situated at Punjagutta, Hyderabad. The said house is situated in Plot No. 42/A, admeasuring 383.33 square yards comprising survey No. 185 and 186 in the lay out of Durganagar Co- operative Housing Society. 3. Plot NO. 42 admeasuring 125 square yards belongs to respondents No. 3 and 4 who claim to have purchased the same from Respondent No.2. Since, the respondents NO. 3 and 4 are raising some illegal constructions encroaching upon a part of road, the petitioners made a complaint to the 1st Respondent Corporation. There being no action on the complaint, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Respondents No.1 and 3 filed counter affidavits. S.A. Sami has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that notice under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was issued to the third respondent on 12-2- 2008 giving three days time to remove balcony and pillars. However, third respondent has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice and thereby final notice under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act came to be issued on 16-2-2008. Challenging the same, the 3rd Respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 3319 of 2008. The said writ petition is dismissed for default on 29-2-2008. Third Respondent filed application under BPS vide File NO. 2090/W6-3/Cir- X/CZ/2008, dated 31-3-2008. 5. Syed Abdul Bari-3rd Respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners themselves constructed the house violating building permission. He purchased ready built house and therefore, there are no violation of the sanctioned plan. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent corporation having initiated action for removal of unauthorized constructions put up by the third respondent did not pursue further to give effect to the orders and therefore necessary direction is required to be given to the 1st respondent-corporation to demolish the unauthorized constructions made by third respondent. 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that proceedings have been initiated which culminated into an order under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act while so, the third respondent filed application seeking benefit under BPS vide NO. 2090/ w6-3/Cirx/C2/2008, dated 31-3-2008 and the said application is pending consideration. 9. Since, the 1st respondent has already initiated proceedings, which culminated into an order, under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the same has to be given effect by the 1st Respondent soon after disposal of the application filed by the 3rd respondent under Building Penalization Scheme. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 1st July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2810 OF 2008 1st July, 2008.