IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16024 of 2002 Between : A. Chandra Mohan Rao, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, H.No. 6-2-39/A, V.T.Road, Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner (Grade-I), Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda District 2 The Town Planning Officer, Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda District 3 V. Parvathamma W/o Prabhakara Chari, R/o H.No. 6-2-39/B,V.T. Road, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to discharge the statutory duties as provided under A.P., Municipalities Act 1965 and rules made there under, to take action against the illegal and irregular construction carried on by the 3rd Respondent in premises bearing No. 6-2-39/B, V.T. Road, Ramgiri, Nalgonda by declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking action against the constructions carried on by the 3rd Respondent in the above said premises as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though the 3rd respondent has constructed the house bearing No. 6-2-39/B, V.T.Road, Ramgiri, Nalgonda, in violation of the sanctioned plan, and inspite of his representation, no steps have been taken by respondents 1 and 2 for removal of such structures, which are constructed contrary to the sanctioned plan. 2. Though the writ petition is of the year 2002, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of 1st and 2nd respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has purchased an extent of 108 square yards through registered sale deed dated 22.04.1994, and further extent of 45 square yards in the house bearing No.6-2-39/B, vide registered sale deed, dated 06.10.1997. It is specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit of 3rd respondent that constructions were made in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and there are no deviations. 3. If any constructions are made by the 3rd respondent in violation of the sanctioned plan, it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to respondents 1 and 2 in this regard, but at this point of time, in the absence of counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, and in view of the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit that constructions were made in accordance with the sanctioned plan, no directions can be issued by way of Mandamus, as prayed for. However, it is kept open for the petitioner to make a representation to respondents 1 and 2, if any constructions are made by the 3rd respondent contrary to the sanctioned plan, and if any such representation is filed, respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and take appropriate action in the matter. 4. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th June 2009 ajr