IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.6226 & 15956 of 2011 W.P.No.6226 of 2011 Between: Smt. S. Vijitha Reddy … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri C. Damodar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.6226 & 15956 of 2011 COMMON ORDER:- Writ Petition No.6226 of 2011 is filed by the owner of house bearing No.12-13-705/9/A, SSR Enclave, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, for a Mandamus to set aside notice No.30/TPS/C-18/NZ/GHMC/2011, dated 14.02.2011. Writ Petition No.15956 of 2011 is filed by Gokulnagar Welfare Society, Secunderabad, complaining of the alleged inaction by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in removing the obstructions allegedly created by respondent No.4 by raising a wall in front of Plot Nos.63 to 65 contrary to the revised layout plan No.30/72, dated 28.06.1972 and permit Nos.50/82 and 129/2008, dated 02.08.1997 and 21.10.2008 respectively. In the manner in which these Writ Petitions are proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to record the reasons in detail. It will suffice to note that in Contempt Case No.366 of 2011 filed by the petitioner alleging wilful violation of interim order, dated 10.03.2011 in Writ Petition No.6226 of 2011, this Court has passed an order giving appropriate directions to the respondents. It is useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the said order hereinbelow. “The dispute is about the existence or otherwise of a passage. The petitioner enclosed certain area with compound wall. The neighbours are said to have complained that the petitioner has encroached certain area connecting the road. Obviously, the respondents felt that the compound wall ought not to have been constructed. Before demolishing the compound wall, they ought to have put the petitioner on notice. Be that as it may, no damage as such was caused to the main building. What is demolished is a small portion of compound wall. Even now, the layout can be verified. Hence, the contempt case is closed by directing that the respondents shall verify the area where the petitioner constructed the compound wall with reference to the approved layout. If it emerges that the petitioner did not encroach any lane shown in the layout, it shall be open to him to construct the compound wall at the place where it existed. On the other hand, if it emerges that the area concerned is part of any lane, he shall not be entitled to do so. It shall be open to the affected parties to approach a Court of law, if they are so advised.” At the hearing, the learned counsel for all the parties agreed that having regard to the directions issued in the contempt case, as noted above, these Writ Petitions can be disposed of in terms of the said order. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall follow the directions contained in Contempt Case No.366 of 2011. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.No.7762 of 2011 in W.P.No.6226 of 2011 and WPMP.No.19109 of 2011 in W.P.No.15956 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.08.2011 ES