IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1392 of 2009 Between: G. Ramalaxmi W/o. Chanraiah R/o. H.No.1-6-202/19/B/9, Bapuji Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle-9, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Sardarmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 3 Goundla Bal Narsimha S/o. Not known to the petitioner R/o. 1-9-202/18/9/E, Bapuji Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking further action against 3rd respondent, inspite of complaints dated 23.12.2008 and 23.1.2009 by petitioner and not removing the illegal construction in premises No.1-6-202/18/A/9, Bapujinagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of provisions of HMC Act and to direction respondent 1 and 2 to initiate action against the 3rd respondent and to direction respondent 1 and 2 to initiate action against the 3rd respondent and to remove the illegal and deviated structures and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.Nos.1392 and 11190 of 2009 O R D E R: The parties to these two writ petitions being common and common questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard together and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer the parties as they are arrayed in W.P.No.1392 of 2009. The writ petitioner Smt. G.Ramalaxmi, claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.1-6-202/18/A/9, Bapujinagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 19.5.1988. The third respondent herein G.Bal Narasimha is the owner of the neighbouring house bearing No.1-9-202/18/9/E. Alleging that the third respondent has been making unauthorized and illegal constructions, the petitioner made a complaint, dated 23.12.2008, followed by another reminder dated 23.1.2009, before the first respondent-Corporation. However, no steps were taken. Aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking action against the third respondent for removal of the illegal constructions made in premises bearing No. 1-6- 202/18/A/9, she filed W.P.No. 1392 of 2009. Thereafter the third respondent in W.P.No.1392 of 2009 (G.Bal Narsimha) filed W.P.No.11190 of 2009 alleging that the third respondent (the petitioner in W.P.No.1392 of 2009) had constructed the house bearing No. 1- 6-202/19/B/9, without any permission or sanction and that though he filed complaints dated 30.4.2009 and 1.5.2009, the Corporation failed to take any action. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation under instructions submitted that notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 was already issued with regard to the complaints received in respect of premises bearing No.1-6- 202/18/9/A. It is apparent that both the parties have been making allegations against each other and these writ petitions are filed as a claim and counter- claim. Since the complaints made by both the parties are admittedly pending before the Corporation, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case and express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations in the complaints. It is for the Corporation to make necessary enquiry into the said allegations and the learned Standing Counsel states that such enquiry is already in progress. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the respective complaints made by the petitioners in both the writ petitions in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both parties to make their submissions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI 10th July, 2009 PNV