IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24542 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Naseer Ahmed, S/o Mohd. Khalid Ahmed, Rep by his GPA Holder Mohd. Mehboob Ahmed, S/o. Khalid Ahmed, Muslim, aged about 35 years, Occ : Business,R/o. 20-40209/1/3/7, Khilwath, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep by its Special Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Kota Laxminarayana, S/o. K. Pentaiah, R/o. 23-6-965/1/1, Kisan Pershad Devdi, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction and more particularly in the nature of Writ of "Mandamus" directing the Respondent No. 1 to remove the illegal and un-authorized construction in premises No. 23-6-965/1/1, situated at K.P. Devdi, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.A.ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by Mohammed Naseer Ahmed assailing the inaction of the ﬁrst respondent on the representation submitted by him with regard to the illegal constructions being made by the second respondent. The petitioner claims to have purchased 300 square yards from the second respondent under an agreement of sale dated 2.8.2004. He ﬁled O.S.No.29 of 2006 on the ﬁle of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the second respondent for speciﬁc performance of the agreement of sale. The said suit is stated to be pending. While so, the petitioner submitted a representation to the ﬁrst respondent complaining that the second respondent is proceeding with the constructions on the property which is the subject matter of O.S.No.29 of 2006 without obtaining necessary permission. There being no action on the said representation, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel of Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad received notice on behalf of the first respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel of Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad appearing on behalf of the first respondent. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the second respondent is proceeding with the constructions without obtaining necessary permission and therefore, the constructions are to be interdicted by the first respondent. Learned standing counsel of Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad appearing on behalf of the ﬁrst respondent submits that the petitioner is only an agreement holder and he ﬁled the suit against the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to obtain necessary orders against the second respondent not to proceed with the constructions. A fact remains that the petitioner ﬁled suit basing on agreement of sale and the said suit is stated to be pending. In case the petitioner intends to prevent the second respondent to proceed with the constructions, he can as well move an application before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein the suit ﬁled by him is pending seeking necessary interim relief restraining the second respondent to proceed with the constructions in the property which is the subject matter of the suit. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief restraining the second respondent from proceeding with the constructions in the property, which is the subject matter of the suit. No costs. ___________ 10-11-2008 rkk