IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18917 of 2007 Between: K.Ganga Reddy S/o.Late K.Krishna Reddy R/o.12-5-121, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, MCH, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Commissioner, MCH Circle No.IV, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Town Planner, Circle No.IV, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 4 Smt.S.Siddamma W/o.late S.Narayana R/o.9-1-19/6, Tolichowki, 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 may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction of the respondent No.1 to 3 for not taking steps as per the Municipal law against the respondent No.4 who has made a illegal construction without obtaining a valid municipal permission in respect of the property bearing No. 9-4-130/131 an open area falling under unit No.11 totally admeasuring 508 Sq. yards situated at Akber Bagh, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, inspite of issuance of the Legal Notice dated 12-2-2007 and also in view of the pendency of the Civil Suits in O.S.No.7241/2002 for cancellation of Agreement of Sale on the ﬁle of the XIV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ﬁled by the petitioner against the Respondent No.4 (2) O.S.No.5088/2001 on the ﬁle of the XIV Junior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (3) O,S.No.22/2004 on the ﬁle of the IX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ﬁled by Sharada REddy D/o. of the petitioner i.e., suit for cancellation of sale Deed and AGreement of Sale ﬁled against the petitioner and also Respondent No.4 and further the Respondent No.4 has ﬁled a suit for speciﬁc performance of Contract on O.S.No.5821/2005 before the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and declare the same as totally illegal, arbitrary against the principle of natural justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by K.Ganga Reddy assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking steps to prevent Smt.S.Siddamma-4th respondent from proceeding with illegal constructions on the premises bearing Door No.9- 4-130/131 admeasuring 508 sq. yards situated at Akber Bagh, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the house bearing No.9-4-130/131 admeasuring 508 sq. yards situated at Akber Bagh, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, his mother purchased the property in the year 1970 under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.1970. A civil suit being O.S.No.7241 of 2002 on the ﬁle of XIV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in respect of the house bearing No.9-4-130/131 is pending adjudication. It appears civil suits are pending between the parties in respect of the premises bearing No.9-4-130/131. It is stated in the writ aﬃdavit that the 4th respondent is proceeding with the constructions without obtaining any permission and that the respondents 1 to 3 are not taking any steps to prevent the illegal constructions being made by the 4th respondent. 3. Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel of GHMC received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit of the 3 rd respondent. K.Narsinga Rao, Assistant City Planner, Circle VII, GHMC, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 3 rd respondent. It stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that there is no construction activity in the premises in question. For better appreciation, I may refer para.2 of the counter-aﬃdavit and it reads as hereunder: “In reply to Para.3 of the aﬃdavit, it is respectfully submitted that the averments made in this para are false. There is no construction activity started in the suit schedule property as alleged by the petitioner. An old dilapidated structure exists in suit schedule property, which collapsed due to heavy rains. At present no construction activity is started in the suit schedule property. Being law-abiding body, the respondent Corporation will initiate necessary action if any construction activity starts in suit schedule property. The petitioner may be put to strict proof of issuance of legal notice.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel of GHMC appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 5. The counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 3 rd respondent indicates that there is no construction activity in the premises in question. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 failed to discharge their duty in preventing the illegal constructions being made by the 4th respondent in the premises in question has no substance. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}