IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27945 of 2008 Between: G.V. Ramakrishna Rao S/o. G.L. Narasimha Rao A.P.State Co-operative Bank, R/o. H.No.12-13-241, Street No.15, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tirupati Urban Development Authority, (TUDA), Tirupati rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, rep. by its Commissioner, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 Sri Rudra Raju Chenchu Raghava Raju S/o. Rudra Raju Chenchu Raju R/o. Satyanarayanapuram Post, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4 Sree Venkateswara Homes & Developers, 20-3-2/1C, Siva Jyothi Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District, rep. by its Managing Partner G. Ananda Rao, .....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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in sanctioning the building plan in B.A.No.261/06/G dated 23.05.2007 including the land of the petitioner in an extent of 06 Cents of land with a width of 33' feet and lenght of 78' feet in S.No.696/1 of Tirupati Urban Village as unjust, arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said layout / building plan to the extent of the petitioner's land which was shown as a road in S.No.696/1 of Tirupati Urban Village measuring 06 cents with a width of 33' feet and length of 78' feet and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SIVAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER According to the petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of land in Survey No.496/2/c-1, admeasuring Ac.4.00. According to him, most of the land is disposed of, but, still he is in possession of Ac.0.5 ½ cents i.e., about 250 square yards in Survey No.696/1. However, including the said land, the 3rd respondent who is his neighbour and owner of survey No.692/2 gave a plan for approval of construction of building. It appears that the authority i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2, without knowing the said fact, approved the said plan. As the said construction of the building, as per the approved plan, is projecting into a piece of land belonging to the petitioner, he approached the 2nd respondent and gave a representation as early as on 25th August, 2008, marking a copy to the 1st respondent. Despite the said representation, no steps have been initiated and hence, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner , Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Tirupati Urban Development Authority and Sri S.I.Newton, learned Standing Counsel for Tirupati Municipal Corporation. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the aspect as to whether the land belonging to the petitioner is encroached upon by the un-official respondents, while submitting the building plan for approval. As the said fact is already brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent by way of a representation dated 25.8.2008, it is suffice to direct the official respondents to cause a detailed enquiry into the said representation, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the usual notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is hereby dispensed with. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, respondents Nos.3 and 4 are directed to maintain status quo as on today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________ 23-12-2008 rkk