IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11722 of 2008 Between: 1 S. Padma W/o. S. Raju R/o. 2-48/6/1/A ( Plot No. P.251/Rc/1, Ward no.9, Gochibowli Telicomnagar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Thikkamachaya Madhavi W/o. Hanumanthu R/o. 2-48/6/1/A ( Plot No. 46/R.C./1) Ward no.9, Gochibowli, Telicomnagar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Smt. Santhamma W/o. Jojappa R/o. Ward no.9, Gochibowli Telicomnagar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampalli Circle-11, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally, Grater 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 as writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in closing the 20feet path way of the Petitioner's house by extending the park area from 140'-0" to 160'-1" and also threatening to dispossess the Petitioners from their respective thatched houses is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the sanctioned Huda Plan, violative of Principled of natural Justice, null and void and consequently direct the respondents not to close the 20feet pathway by extending the park area further direct the respondents not to demolish or dispossess the petitioners from their respective thatched house situated in Ward No.9 in Sy.No. 91 of Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli, ( R.R.District) G.H.M.C., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.LNARASIMHA RAO & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners who are three in number with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in closing the 20 feet path way of the petitioner’s house by extending the park area from 140 to 160 feet and also threatening to disposes the petitioners from their respective thatched houses as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to have put in thatched houses in the year 1983 in Telecom Nagar. Thereafter, they claimed to have purchased 110 square yards each from the Secretary of Telecom Nagar. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents are encroaching on the site in their possession on the premise of putting up constructions over the area earmarked for park. The respondents filed counter affidavit. One P.Nagaveni has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in order to safeguard the park from encroachments compound wall is being constructed. Para 5 of the counter reads as under: “ 5. In reply to paras and 5 it is submitted that the respondent-Corporation is constructing the compound wall around the park area. This is being done to safeguard the park from encroachments. The respondent-corporation is constructing the compound wall only to the extent of the land earmarked for park as per the approved layout. The averment made by the petitioners that the respondent-Corporation is constructing the wall by violating the HUDA sanctioned plan is false and hence denied. In fact the petitioners encroached the land earmarked for the park and the respondent Corporation had given ample time for them to vacate the park area.” Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been residing in the telecom nagar since 1987 and each of them is in possession of 110 square yards. Their further case is that the Secretary of the Telecom Nagar sold the sites to them for consideration. As on this day there is no registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. A specific assertion has been made by the respondents that they are constructing the compound wall around the area earmarked for park. Such is the statement made by the respondents there cannot be any apprehension by the petitioners that the respondents are trying to put up compound wall in an area other than the area earmarked for park. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 8th August, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11722 OF 2008 8TH AUGUST 2008.