IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5449 of 2009 Between: Smt.Yousuf Bee W/o. Md. Salahuddin R/o. 6-1-255/35C, Old CIB Quarters, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Municipal Corporation GHMC, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner Circle NO. VII, GHMC, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 Syed Fareed Ahmed S/o. Syed Rasheed Ahmed, R/o. 6-1-257, Old CIB Quarters, Khairatabad, 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not taking any action against the 3rd respondents illegal, construction being done in the premises bearing No. 6-1-257, Old CIB Quarters, Khairatabad, Hyderabad is arbitrary illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner states that she purchased a building bearing No.6-1-255 situated at Old C.I.B. Quarters, Khairatabad, Hyderabad from his vender under registered sale deed dated 21.06.1971 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of it. The petitioner further states that towards west of her house, there is a public road, and the unofficial respondent, who is her neighbour, tried to encroach upon the road and make illegal constructions, and that as by reason of such illegal constructions, petitioner’s pipeline which is passing from under the pillars is getting damaged, she made a representation, dated 13.3.2009 to the 1st respondent requesting him to take action against the unofficial respondent, but it is her grievance that the official respondents have neither taken any action against the unofficial respondent nor passed any orders on the representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Having regard to the fact that the representation dated 13.3.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the representation dated 13.3.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously, after affording opportunity to the unofficial respondent to put forth his version, and then take action in accordance with the decision to be taken. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 18th March, 2009 bcj