THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2010 O R D E R: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in allowing the respondents 5 to 10 to proceed with construction on plot No.627/A part of Survey No.128/1 and 5 which is described as H.No.8-3-228/678/1528 and 1703 admeasuring 279 square yards, Sriramnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to allow any construction on the aforesaid property by the respondents 5 to 10. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner and his other family members are owners of the aforesaid property and are enjoying the same. All of sudden, respondents 5 to 10 approached the site and tried to grab the same with fabricated, sham and fictitious documents. The petitioner & others filed O.P. No.409 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was disposed of on 2.5.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 5 to 10 filed L.G.A. No.22 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, which remanded the matter to the trial court. When the respondents 5 to 10 tried to proceed with illegal constructions, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondents 1 to 4 not to allow the respondents 5 to 10 to proceed with construction. Due to inaction of the official respondents in taking appropriate action, the respondents 5 to 10 are proceeding with construction without any sanctioned plan or permission. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit denying averments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia as follows. The site in question falls in a slum area. The unofficial respondents have already completed the construction. After receipt of complaint, the officials inspected the site and found that the unofficial respondents are making illegal construction and issued notice. But, the unofficial respondents approached the court of law against the said notice and obtained interim orders, and so, action could not be taken against the unofficial respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Though it is stated that the respondent no.5 died during pendency of the Writ Petition, no steps have been taken. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed against the respondent no.5. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 10. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The respondents 5 to 10 made illegal construction in the site in question without sanctioned plan. As the respondents 6 to 10 filed a suit and obtained interim orders, the respondents 1 to 4 could not proceed further in pursuance of the notice issued by them. Now that, the suit itself is dismissed, there is no impediment for the respondents 1 to 4 to proceed against the respondents 6 to 10 in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner and verify whether the respondents 6 to 10 made any constructions illegally without any sanctioned plan or contrary to the sanctioned plan in the site in question and take appropriate decision in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the respondents 6 to 10. No costs. ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J.) 29.12.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2010 Date: 29.12.2011