IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27230 of 2007 Between: R.Narayana Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy, R/o H.No.2-1-495, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Warangal Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Warangal. 2 Mrs.Anitha, W/o Ravinder Reddy, R/o H.no.2-1-496, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not taking any action pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner on dt.8-10-2007, 19-11-2007 and 26-11-2007 requesting to stop the illegal construction being made by the 2nd respondent in premises bearing No.2-1-496, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to take appropriate action on the representations dt.8-10-2007, 19-11-2007, 26-11-2007 and to grant suchother relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.DURGA NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by R.Narayana Reddy assailing the inaction of 1st respondent-Warangal Municipal corporation rep. By its Commissioner on the representation made by the petitioner complaining the unauthorized constructions being made by Ms.Anitha-2nd respondent. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of house bearing No.2-1-495, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. He purchased open plot on 10-11-1999 from one M.Ramana Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1999. He constructed a house in the said plot. 2nd respondent is the owner of the adjacent plot. She secured permission to construct a house in the adjacent plot. When she started construction of the building without leaving set backs and in violation of the sanctioned plan, the petitioner submitted representations to 1st respondent complaining the illegal constructions being made by 2nd respondent. There being no action on the representations he choose to approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 1st and 2nd respondents filed counter affidavits. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit of 1st respondent that the premises of 2nd respondent has been inspected after receiving complaints and found that 2nd respondent constructed ground plus three ﬂoors. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that third ﬂoor is constructed without permission and in deviation of sanctioned plan a notice under section 452 of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 came to be issued. The 2nd respondent admits of his constructing the ground ﬂoor with minor deviations from the sanctioned plan so as in tune with ‘vaasthu’. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit of the 2 nd respondent that the petitioner himself encroached land to the extent of 8 feet and constructed a house. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1st respondent and counsel appearing for 2nd respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 1st respondent having issued the notice under section 452 of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 ought to have proceeded further and a further submission has been made that 1st respondent is required to be directed to proceed further pursuant to the notice issued under section 452 of A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submits that he ﬁled application under Building Regularization Scheme and he is awaiting its consideration. A fact remains that 2nd respondent completed construction of the building. 1st respondent issued notice under section 452 of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 pointing out the deviations made by 2nd respondent in constructing the building. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing 1st respondent to take further steps consequent on the notice issued under section 452 of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 after disposal of the application ﬁled by 2nd respondent under BRS. No costs. 26th August, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.27230 OF 2007 26T H AUGUST, 2008.