HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.22085 of 2008 Date: December 29, 2009 Between: M. Dhannu Singh, S/o. late Durga Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-3-568, Kachibowli, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad … Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.18, Secunderabad, rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Liberty, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the first respondent to act upon the representation dated 04-09-2008, which is stated to have been submitted by the petitioner, and demolish the structures constructed illegally by the second respondent in Plot No.38 in Sy.Nos.49, 50 and 51 of D.V. Colony, Kachibowli, Bholakpur village, Nallagutta, Minister Road, Secunderabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is making constructions in the aforesaid premises without obtaining any sanction plan and though he has submitted representation in this regard to the first respondent, no action whatsoever is taken. The City Planner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent- Corporation. In the counter affidavit, while, generally, denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that a notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is already issued to the second respondent and on receipt of the same, he approached the City Civil Court and obtained injunction orders. In this writ petition, the petitioner disputes the title and possession of the second respondent with regard to the property in question. The said issue cannot be gone into and decided by this court. It is for the petitioner to workout his remedies by impleading himself in the suit filed by the second respondent. With regard to the allegation of the petitioner regarding the inaction of the respondents on his representation, it is to be seen that the first respondent has already issued notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, but no further steps could be taken in view of the orders of injunction obtained by the second respondent in the suit filed by him. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the first respondent- Corporation has not taken any action on the representation of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to implead himself, in the suit stated to have been filed by the second respondent. It is made clear that subject to the outcome of the orders in the said suit, it would be open to the first respondent-Corporation to proceed further in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 29, 2009 MRR