IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7606 of 2009 Between: Smt.Linga Sandhya Rani W/o.Linga Anil Kumar R/o.H.No.3-6-108/6,Main Road,Himayathnagar Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner ,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road,Hyderabad 2 The Addl.Commissioner,Planning GHMC Tank Bund Road Hyderabad 3 The Chief City Planner,GHMC Tank Bund Road Hyderabad 4 The Zonal Commissioner, Central Zone Hyderabad 5 The Deputy Municipal Commissioner Circle No.9, GHMC Abids,Hyderabad 6 The Assistant City Planner,Circle No.9,GHMC Abids,Hyderabad 7 Smt.Razia Sultana W/o.Not known to the petitioner R/o.H.No.3-6-108/5, Himayathnagar 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 or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 6 remove the illegal, constructions made by encroaching the public road by the 7th respondent forthwith and may be pleased to pass any other writ or direction which this Hon`ble High Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.A.PULLA REDDY & ABHISHEK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing House No.3-6-108/6, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. She filed this writ petition stating that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, with a view to widen the existing road by 20 feet from Liberty junction to Narayanguda junction, identified certain properties to be effected by road widening and acquired the same by paying compensation. It is stated that the property of the petitioner also effected in the said road widening. While so, the 7th respondent herein, whose entire building was acquired for the said purpose, having received the compensation, encroached the road portion and constructed four mulgies as a result of which the road at that point has become narrow and causing traffic jams and hindrance to the smooth flow of traffic besides causing lot of inconvenience to the neighbors and pedestrians. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though she brought this fact to the notice of respondents 1 to 6 vide representations dated 26.2.2009 and 26.3.2009 and requested them to take necessary steps to remove the said encroachment, so far no action has been taken and hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that since the representations of the petitioner dated 26.2.2009 and 26.3.2009 are pending consideration before the authorities, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the authorities may be directed to consider and dispose of the same, for which course of action, the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 26.2.2009 and 26.3.2009 and take necessary action after giving notice and opportunity to the effected parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.22.4.2009 msv