THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19646 of 2002 16th September 2009 Between: 1. K.Ranga Reddy, S/o.Yadagiri Reddy, 45 years, R/o. Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District. And one other. …PETITIONERS AND 1. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep.by its Vice Chairman, Begumpet, Hyderabad. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19646 of 2002 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the constructions, i.e. Marriage Hall, being raised by the third respondent in the land situated at Survey Nos.229 and 230 of Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners are residents of Koheda Village and Kuntloor Village respectively of Hayathnagar Mandal. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, they have not stated the cause of action for filing the Writ Petition and the said Writ petition is also not filed as Public Interest litigation. At the same time, it is the allegation of the petitioners that the third respondent has undertaken constructions in the above said land, which was notified for conservation use, as per the Master Plan prepared by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the constructions undertaken by the third respondent are illegal and the third respondent filed O.S.No.1501 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil judge (East & North), Ranga Reddy District, for injunction basing on the permission alleged to have accorded by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. A reference is also made to the show cause notice issued vide Notice No.1/UC/HUDA/2002 dated 09.10.2002. In the absence of any cause of action, no direction can be given as sought for. But at the same time, since it is stated that the constructions are illegal and suit filed by the third respondent is pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the first respondent to take appropriate steps, in case constructions made by the third respondent are illegal subject to the outcome of the proceedings in O.S.No.1501 of 2002. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 16th September 2009 RRB