IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 20976 of 2008 Between: Mr.Thakur Shivlender Singh S/o.Thakur Subhash Singh H.No.5-6-39 Dhanagar Galli Old Vegetable Market Tandur (M)& Proper Dist Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Municipal Council Tandur Mandal Tandur District Ranga Reddy District 2 Smt Gowdampally Vijayalakshmi W/o Sri G.Narayana H.No.5-6-8 Dhanagar Gally Old Vegetable Market Tandur (M) & Proper District Ranga Reddy District .....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 to pass an order or writ particulalry one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.1 further proceedings of his Confirmation order(Notice) C.O.No.3/TPBO/2008 dt 10-9-2008 for the illegal constructions proposed by the respondent No.2 without obliging the sanction plan issued in Proc No.C/748/2008 dt 22-7- 2008 as arbitrary illegal,against the rules of law and principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.20976 of 2008 ORDER: 1 According to the petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of premises bearing D.No.5-6-39 situated at Dhangar Gally, Old Vegetable Market, Tandur which is a thickly populated area having only 20 ft. road to pass towards the Gunj from Old Vegetable Market. The second respondent herein is also having her premises bearing D.No.5-6-8 at the very same place. With a view to construct a two flooried building with RCC roof, the second respondent demolished the existing building and started construction of the building without any approval of the building plan from the first respondent. According to the petitioner the said construction is encroaching into the road and as it is causing any amount of inconvenience, the petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the first respondent by way of a representation and the first respondent after taking into account all the factual matrix, passed an order dated 10.09.2008, directing the second respondent to remove the unauthorized constructions. Despite the said order, as the unauthorized constructions have not been removed, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the first respondent – Municipality. 3 Despite service of notice, the second respondent has not chosen to appear either in person or through any advocate. 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the first respondent this court is of the view that there is an unauthorized construction being constructed by the second respondent and in that context only the first respondent Municipality had passed an order on 10.09.2008 pointing out the deviations. 5 In that view of the matter, the first respondent is hereby directed to strictly adhere to the proceedings C.O.No.3/TPBO/2008 dated 10.09.2008 and see that the unauthorized constructions made by the second respondent are either removed by the second respondent himself or removed by the Municipality at the cost of the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ------------------------ SRI T.G.K, J. 24.12.2008 Kvsn