IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11176 of 2008 Between: Viswakarma Weaker Section Welfare Association, (Regn. No.166/85, rep. by its Secretary, C. Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Late C. Bhaskar Rao, aged 60 yrs, R/o. H.No.4-7- 1080, Essamia Bazar, Hyderabad-500027. ..... PETITIONER AND 1District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2The Commissioner, Qutbullapur Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 3Manna Balseh S/o. Kistaiah R/o. H.No.1-4, Suraram Village, R.R. District. 4Krishna Reddy S/o. Nagi Reddy R/o. H.No.1-17, Suraram Village, R.R. District. 5Pratap Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy R/o. H.No.134/1, Suraram Village, R.R. District. 6K. Srinivasa Reddy S/o. Yella Reddy R/o. H.No.134, Suraram Village, R.R. District. 7C. Anjaneyulu S/o. Narsimhulu R/o. H.No.5-35/111, Vasantnagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 8Kanakachary S/o. S.H. Lingam R/o.12-68, Vasantnagar, Opp: IDPL Colony, Hyderabad. 9Sadanandam S/o. Veeraiah R/o.H.No.2-148, Fatehnagar, 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 pass an appropriate writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 for not taking any action against the respondents 3 to 9 on the representation of the Petitioner Association dated 20.02.2008 and 02.04.2008 is unjust and arbitrary and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.BALACHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: Viswakarma Weaker Section Welfare Association is registered under Societies Registration Act with Registration No.166/85. It is represented by its Secretary C.Hanumantha Rao. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority allotted 862 plots to the petitioner-association. Out of which pattas were given to the members in respect of 616 plots. 500 members of the association constructed houses and remaining 116 members could not construct the house. It is the version of the petitioner- association that the members could not construct the houses because of illegal interference from R3 to R9. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition that R4 to R9 in collusion with R2 constructed 60 houses illegally on the plots allotted to the members of the petitioner-association. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner-association I deem it appropriate to refer para 3 of the writ affidavit and it is thus: “ 3. Further, the petitioner submits that the members of the society have ﬁled an application to the 2nd respondent for grant of permission for construction of houses on the patta lands which were allotted by the 1st respondent. The petitioner further submits that previously some third parties who were in no way connected to the land claimed that they are also entitled for allotment of house sites by forming a bogus society under the name of Suraram Development Association and made a representation to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that they are the real society and hence they are eligible to be granted house sites. But the government of Andhra Pradesh i.e., 1st respondent has rejected their applications by saying that they have already been given pattas in survey no.107, Qutubullahpur Mandal and the said third parties have carried the matter before this Honourable Court and this Honourable Court was pleased to dismiss the writ appeal ﬁled by the third parties. Copies of the orders are filed.” The relief sought for in the writ petition reads as under: “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying aﬃdavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 for not taking any action against the respondents 3 to 9 on the representation of the petitioner-association dated 20.2.2008 and 2.4.2008 is unjust and arbitrary and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Notice before admission came to be ordered on 10.6.2008. R7 to R9 entered appearance and ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. V.Sadanandham has sworn to the counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that C.H.Rao who has sworn to the writ aﬃdavit has been removed from the oﬃce of Secretary of the petitioner-association and in his place R9 has been appointed as Secretary by the Managing Committee of the petitioner- association on 10.1.2007 and since then he has been functioning as Secretary. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that C.H.Rao committed various irregularities by accepting amounts from various persons on the promise of allotting plots to them. The names of the persons from whom he has collected amounts have been detailed in the counter aﬃdavit. Para 8 of the counter affidavit need to be noted and it is thus: “ 8. I submit that thereafter the association was called upon to submit list of persons eligible for allotment of house sites consisting of 80.00 square yards each. Accordingly, a list of 1456 persons was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad East Division who on enquiry found that only 862 persons eligible for house sites and thereafter through his letter No.B/145/86 dated 21.12.1988 directed the MRO, Qutubullapur Mandal to accommodate the beneﬁciaries. And it is also evident that the HUDA approved the lay out of 854 plots of 80.00 square yards each. However, it was found only 718 beneﬁciaries were eligible for grant of house sites as is seen from the RDO letter No.B2/2264/86 dated 24.1.1990. Thereafter, the District Collector through his letter No.D1/11840/1985 dated 22.2.1990 informed the RDO that the permission was accorded for grant of house sites to 718 eligible beneﬁciaries in Survey No.190 of Suraram Village of Qutubullapur Mandal requesting to issue house sites pattas and report compliance. Thereafter, the RDO through his letter No.B2/2264/86 dated 5.3.1990 informed the respondent No.1 that the list of beneﬁciaries was prepared and sent for allotment of house sites pattas by the respondent No.1.” When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-association submits that R4 to R9 in collusion with 2nd respondent constructed 60 houses illegally on the plots allotted to the petitioner-association and therefore necessary direction is required to be given to R1 and R2 to remove the illegal constructions made by non-members of the petitioner-association. Learned counsel took me to the letters addressed by the petitioner-association to the Commissioner as well as the Collector to buttress his submission that unauthorized constructions made by non-members have been brought to their notice. Learned counsel appearing for R7 to R9 submits that C.H.Rao who has ﬁled the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner- association is no more the Secretary of the Association and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. A further submission has been made that R7 is the President and R9 is the Secretary of the petitioner-association and they are the proper parties to represent the petitioner- association. A further submission has been made that C.H.Rao who has ﬁled the writ petition has committed various irregularities and thereupon the Managing Committee appointed R9 as its Secretary. I have gone through the material placed on record. There appears to be serious dispute with regard to the management of aﬀairs of the petitioner-association. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of R7 to R9 it is asserted by them that C.H.Rao has been removed as Secretary of the petitioner-Association and in his place R9 has been appointed as Secretary by the Managing Committee. The dispute between the parties, prima facie, appears to be with regard to the management of the aﬀairs of the petitioner-Association. There is no public law element involved in the writ petition and the dispute is purely a private one between the members of the association. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, invocation of jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wholly unwarranted. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. 30-10-2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11176 OF 2008 30TH OCTOBER 2008.