IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22049 of 2007 Between: A.Satyanarayana, S/o Naganna, R/o A-49, J.J.Nagar Colony, Naredmet X Roads, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, represented by its Vice Chairman/Managing Director, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Malkajgiri Municipality, Malkajgiri, Part of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner and Special Officer. 3 The Muthyalarao Co.operative Housing Society, Naredmet Cross Roads, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad represented by its President R.Anjaiah. 4 R.Anjaiah, S/o Yellaiah, R/o A-94, J.J.Nagar Colony, Naredmet Cross Roads, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court MAY be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, of any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 herein in not taking any action in the direction of demolition of illegal structures raised by the 4th respondent herein in the land earmarked for communal purposes such as Temple Parks, Hospital, Schools etc., in Sy.No.218/1/3, Ramakrishnapuram, Naredmet Cross Roads, Malkajgiri Mandal, Rangareddy District in spite of dismissal of the W.P.No.239/1998 on 26th dayof February, 2007 and in spite of legal notice dt.11-9-2007 got issued by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to demolish the said illegal constructions made by the 4th respondent and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3&4: MR. D.V.BHADRAM, & T.A.KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by A.Satyanarayana assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 on the representation made by him with regard to the illegal constructions made by R.Anjaiah-4th respondent on the land earmarked for communal purposes such as Temples, Parks, Hospitals and Schools etc. in Survey No.218/1/3, Ramakrishnapuram, Neredmet Cross Roads, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The petitioner claims to be the Ex-President of the Muthyalarao Co- operative Housing Society, Neredmet Cross Roads, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad-3rd respondent. According to him, the 4th respondent made constructions in the land earmarked for communal purposes such as Temples, Parks, Hospitals and Schools etc. He made representation to the 2nd respondent complaining the said unauthorized constructions made by the 4th respondent. Since the 2nd respondent failed to initiate any action for removal of the constructions made by the 4th respondent, he choose to approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para.3 of the writ affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “3) I respectfully submit that I am a Member and Ex- President of 3rd respondent Society which was established in the year 1968, I humbly submit that the Government of A.P., assigned an extent of Ac.30.00 in Sy.No.218/1/3 of Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajgiri Mandal, Rangareddy District in favour of the 3rd Respondent Society. I submit that on 10th July, 1968 a Layout was sanctioned by the Grampanchayat Malkajgiri and as per the said Layout permit No.71/A/B, Dt.10.07.1968 the following are the particulars of total 320 plots: A Category 90 Plots 250 sq. yards. B Category 114 Plots 200 sq. yards. C Category 120 Plots 150 sq. yards. I humbly submit that in the year 1998 when the then newly elected President of 3rd respondent Society who is now impleaded in the present writ petition by name R.Anjaiah, the 4th respondent was making illegal constructions in the plots earmarked for community purposes such as Parks, Hospital and Schools etc., I approached the official respondents herein complaining of the same. I submit that the 2nd Respondent herein issued a Show Cause Notice Dt.30.12.1997 U/S.228(1)(2) of A.P. Municipalities Act and Sec.42(1), 43(1), U/S.40, 42(5), 43(5), (6), 44, and 51 of Urban Development Act, directing the 4th respondent herein to show cause regarding the said illegal constructions.” 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 12.10.2007. 4. The respondents 3 and 4 filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the land earmarked for communal purposes such as Temples, Parks, Hospitals and Schools etc., was shifted according to the revised lay-out as per the common judgment dated 12.04.2000 passed in WP Nos.29937 of 1998 and 688 of 2000 filed by Sri R.Subrahmanyam and K.Kotaiah and another. In the said writ petitions, the revised layout in Survey No.218/1/3 was questioned as illegal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent made constructions on the land earmarked for communal purposes such as Temples, Parks, Hospitals and Schools etc. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submits that the original layout has been revised and accordingly common areas have been shifted. A further submission has been made that the 4th respondent has not made any constructions in the common areas as per the revised layout. 7. The question whether the 4th respondent made constructions in the common area is required to be examined by the 2nd respondent on physical verification. 8. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry as to whether the 4th respondent made constructions on the lands earmarked for communal purposes such as Temples, Parks, Hospitals and Schools etc. In case the constructions made by the 4th respondent are on the lands earmarked for communal purposes such as Temples, Parks, Hospitals and Schools etc., necessary proceedings have to be initiated for removal of the same. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st November, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}