THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 24115 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to the 1st respondent to take up all preventive action to stop the illegal construction being made by the 2nd respondent over the joint family property i.e. House No.5-1-7, situated at Srinivasanagar, Koratla town, Karimnagar District. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the joint and equal share holders of property in question bearing Door No.No.5-1-7 situated at Srinivasanagar, Koratla town, Karimnagar District and by virtue of Property Tax Assessment Registers of the 1st respondent for the years 1993, 2000-01 and 2002-03, grandfather of the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the said property. Further the Pahani for the year 1990-91 also shows that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner’s late father are the joint owners of the said property, and the House Construction permission vide file No.345/17/79-A dated 26.02.1980 issued by the then Grampanchayat, Koratla also reveal that the petitioner’s late father and the 2nd respondent have jointly taken such permission. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent manipulated the municipal records of the year 2002-03 by rounding up the name of the petitioner’s grandfather and inserting his name, and that there is no source for making such a correction in the 1st respondents records, and that the petitioner never consented to such a correction in the municipal records. The petitioner submits that he made representations dated 25.06.2011, 30.07.2011 and 19.08.2011 to the 1st respondent requesting him to take preventive action to stop the illegal construction in the property in question, over which the petitioner claims to have equal rights along with the 2nd respondent. Since the 1st respondent failed to take any preventive action to stop the illegal construction, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated as follows. House No.5-1-6 belongs to Vanaparthi Lingaiah S/o Rajaiah, and not to the 2nd respondent. Further the 2nd respondent alienated his rights over the House No.5-1-7 to his family members vide document No.539/2011 dated 14.03.2011, and that he obtained permission vide No.G/45/775/2011-12 dated 22.07.2011, based on the ownership documents. House No.5-1-7 belongs to Gatla Satyanarayana as per municipal records since long time, and that as per the registered ownership documents, the 1st respondent issued permission for construction of RCC Residential ground floor vide proceedings No.45/775/2011-12 dated 22.07.2011. The second respondent and his son Gatla Srinivas commenced the construction work after receiving permission from the respondent’s office. The petitioner, claiming that the said site belongs to his grandfather Gatla Gangaram, submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking a copy of permission issued to the 2nd respondent for the construction work, and that the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner for payment of copies amount, and a notice was pasted on the petitioner’s address which was indicated in his representation as he was not in the house, and the information was also given on the mobile phone of the petitioner, and that the petitioner has not approached the 1st respondent’s office with prescribed fee to obtain the copy indicated in his RTI application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent took permission from the municipality for construction of the ground floor for residential purpose but he made constructions on the first floor without obtaining any sanction from the municipality and hence, he prays to issue direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent stated that the 1st respondent granted permission for construction of RCC residential ground floor vide proceedings No.45/775/2011-12 dated 22.07.2011. 6. Therefore, in view of the stand taken by the municipality in the counter, it is clear that the 2nd respondent has not obtained any permission from the municipality for the purpose of construction of first floor, and hence, the 1st respondent is directed to issue notice to the 2nd respondent, under Section 227 or any other relevant Section under A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, and thereafter take appropriate action in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the 2nd respondent. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed not to make any further construction on the first floor. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 08th December, 2011 KSM Issue CC in one week. BO KSM/DRK