HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23228 of 2008 Date: 19.09.2011 Between: Shaik Abdus Sattar ..... Petitioner AND: The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shaik Mohd. Ali Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy Standing Counsel for GHMC Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri K.Ravinder Reddy For Sri M.A.K.Mukheed The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in demolishing the first floor (walls) and ground floor (stair case) completely, in H.No.22-8-512/11, Kochay Khateeb, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ali, learned counsel, who submitted that he is representing the petitioner. I have also heard Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner who is the neighbour of respondent No.3 is that even though the latter has raised several unauthorised constructions, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have removed only some structures while retaining the first floor walls and stair case, which were also constructed unauthorisedly. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the father of respondent No.3 obtained a building permission vide permit No.24/16, dated 02.04.1979, for construction of first floor over the existing ground floor with stair case; that accordingly, he constructed one room in the first floor in the Northeast corner of the premises over the existing ground floor with stair case; that when respondent No.3 has commenced construction on the first floor in addition to one room already constructed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11705 of 2006; that on 13.12.2006, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to demolish the unauthorised structures; that respondent No.3 thereafter filed O.S.No.5225 of 2002 and obtained an order of status quo; and that the said order was subsequently vacated and thereupon, the officials of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation) have demolished the unauthorised structures. Not being satisfied with the said action, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1225 of 2007, which was closed by this Court on the stand taken by the Corporation that the unauthorised part of the structures was demolished. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law if the unauthorised structures were not demolished. While denying that the Corporation has allowed the unauthorised structures to remain, it was stated that the room constructed on the first floor and the stair case are covered vide permit No.26/16, dated 02.04.1979, and therefore, they are not liable for demolition. In my opinion, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the disputed question of fact whether any construction made in violation of the sanctioned plan is allowed to remain or not. While closing the Contempt Case, this Court has given liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if he is aggrieved by non-removal of the unauthorised structures. The petitioner ought to have filed a civil suit instead of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, if he felt that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not removed the unauthorised structures as it is only the civil Court which can decide this disputed question of fact with reference to the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the above-mentioned remedy. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.30257 and 30258 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th September 2011 DR