THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.4482 of 2003 BETWEEN: Smt. N. Subbalaxmi PETITIONER And 1. The Commissioner, Gaddiannaram Municipality, R.R. District, Hyderabad and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C. Narender Counsel for the respondents: Sri C. Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to demolish the alleged illegal construction made by the 2nd respondent in the premises bearing No.19-110/A situated at Kodandaram Nagar, Gaddiannaram Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner claims to be the owner of house bearing premises No.19-109/A. It is stated that she constructed the said house in the year 1982 after obtaining permission by the then Gaddiannaram Gram Panchayat. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent, who is a neighbour, has constructed a room illegally without any permission. It is stated that the said construction has been made in between the space from the compound wall dividing the house of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, and the same is without any set backs. She therefore filed complaints dated 24.02.2003 and 5.03.2003 to the then Municipal Commissioner, Gaddiannaram Municipality. As the said representations were not attended to, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. The matter need not be considered in extenso in view of the counter filed by the 2nd respondents. In his counter the 2nd respondent asserts that he constructed a compound wall leaving 2 ½ feet width on the side of the petitioner’s land in the year 1986. It is stated that in the year 1987 he constructed a small shed on the North West side corner of his house for scooter and car parking. The said shed has no walls except brick columns to support the tin sheets used as roof. The 2nd respondent therefore asserts that no construction as alleged by the petitioner has been made. Having regard to the specific submission that the shed was constructed as long back as in the year 1987, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, if the 2nd respondent has made any further construction, it is for the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the concerned authorities and if any such application is made, the same would be taken for appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 7th April, 2011 Js.