IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6203 of 2009 Between: Suvvari Aruna Kumari, W/o. Rama Rao, R/o. D.No.53-26-8/10, KRM Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal, Corporation rep by its Commissioenr, Visakhapatnam. 2 Kilaparthi Suryanarayana, R/o. 53-26-8/11, KRM Colony, Visakhapatnam-13 3 Vajhula Rama Lakshmi, W/o. Late Jagan Mohan Sarma, R/o. Door No.53-26-10, KRM Colony, Visakhapatnam-13. 4 Koyilada Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Kasinaidu, R/o. 53-26-9, KRM Colony, Visakhapatnam-13 .....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 action of the 1st respondent in not removing encroachments from 60 fee water pipeline public road and 3 feet public lane situated towards West and North of the petitioner residential buildings bearing Door No.53-26-8/10, KRM COlony of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Limited as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 as made applicable to 1st respondent and offends articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the said encroachments and see the public rod and lane are protected for public passage purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner claims to be the owner of the house bearing D.No.53-26-8/10 in K.R.M. Colony, Visakhapatnam, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 4.6.1994 from her vendor Salapu Chinnatalli. Towards west of her house, there is 60 feet public road and towards north, there is a public passage of three feet common lane, which are being used by the public at large. While so, respondent Nos.2 to 4 encroached the different portions of 60 feet public road and also three feet common passage land and blocked free passage of the public at large and the residents of K.R.M. Colony. Then, the petitioner and the residents of K.R.M. Colony made a common representation dated 17.3.2008 requesting the 1st respondent-Corporation to take action against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and also get the encroachments removed, but her grievance is that the 1st respondent has not taken any action against the unofficial respondents nor passed any orders on her representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the 1st respondent. Since the representation dated 17.3.2008 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-Corporation is directed to consider the representation dated 17.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the unofficial respondents to put forth their version, and take appropriate action in accordance with the decision to be taken, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 25th March, 2009 bcj