THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.C. No. 808 of 2009 and W.P.M.P. (SR) No. 86466 of 2009 Common order: The petitioner (Sri. Rodda Sarangapani) claims to be the owner of residential property bearing D. No. 8-3-228/326, Rahmatnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11.03.1998, and since then in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, he states that respondent No.2 (Sri. Sinkisetti Pandurangaiah), who is his neighbour on the western side, demolished his house, and without obtaining any permission from respondent No.1, the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, started construction of a new house, without leaving any setbacks. On 08.04.2009, when respondent No.2 was putting up supports for laying R.C.C. roof by encroaching his land and in a manner affecting his easementary right, the petitioner states he objected to the constructions being made by respondent No.2, and as respondent No.2 proceeded to make the constructions, he states that on the same day, he lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 alleging that respondent No.2 was making constructions in violation of the provisions of the building regulations, and requested him to stop the illegal constructions being made by respondent No.2. Stating so, and alleging that respondent No.1 did not take any action on his complaint, and taking advantage of the said fact, respondent No.2 was proceeding ahead with the making of constructions, by encroaching his property and in a manner affecting his easementary right, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to respondent No.1. On 22.04.2009, this Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission with the following directions: The 1st respondent, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.10, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is directed to consider the representation dated 08.04.2009, purported to have been fled by the petitioner, after issuing notice to the 2nd respondent pointing out the illegal constructions alleged to have been made by him, and taking into consideration the reply, if any, to be submitted by him to such notice, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner states that he made a representation dated 14.05.2009 to respondent No.1 personally enclosing a copy of the above order, and thereafter also, he met him personally on 05.06.2009, and requested respondent No.1 to take action on his complaint, as directed by this Court. However, the petitioner alleging that respondent No.1 has not taken any action on his complaint and thereby committed contempt of the orders of this Court, filed the present contempt case. During the pendency of the above contempt case, one Smt. Laxmi Devi, filed application seeking leave of the Court to file the present review petition stating that she is the owner of property bearing No. 8-3-338/327, and that the petitioner instead of making her party- respondent, has made her husband as party-respondent No.2 in the writ petition, and that the petitioner himself has made constructions without leaving any setbacks and in violation of the plan and municipal bye-laws and regulations, and that when she questioned, he entered into an agreement with her on 28.03.2009 agreeing to the terms mentioned therein, and for signing the said agreement, he demanded Rs.1,00,000/-, and when she expressed her inability to pay the said amount, the petitioner appears to have lodged a complaint, and subsequently complaining inaction, filed the present writ petition and complaining non-compliance of the order passed therein, filed the present contempt case. She further states that when respondent No.1 tried to interfere with her constructions, she filed suit in O.S. No. 3469 of 2009 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondent No.1, and obtained interim injunctions orders dated 03.08.2009 in I.A. No. 346 of 2009, and the same is still pending. She further states that the petitioner, himself having constructed his building without leaving any setbacks and in violation of the municipal bye-laws and regulations, cannot lodged complaint about the constructions made by his neighbours. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-GHMC. As can be seen the stand taken by the review petitioner, there appear to be long standing disputes between the petitioner and the review petitioner, and it is the case of the review petitioner that the petitioner also entered into an agreement on 28.03.2009 with regard to the constructions made by the petitioner and the review petitioner. This apart, the material filed by the review petitioner shows that she submitted a plan for construction for approval and also paid an amount of Rs.3,300/- towards permit for regularization of unauthorized constructions of her house on 19.08.2010 vide Bill No. 267 and Sl. No. 26606. This apart, the material filed by the review petitioner would indicate that she has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 3469 of 2009 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondent No.1, and obtained interim injunctions orders dated 03.08.2009 in I.A. No. 346 of 2009, and the same is still pending. Be that as it may, though the petitioner contends that the constructions being made by respondent No. 2, husband of the review petitioner, are illegal and affecting his easementary rights, the fact remains, whether or not such constructions being made by respondent No.2, husband of review petitioner, are illegal or not, whether they are in accordance with the sanctioned plan, whether the alleged constructions are affecting his easementary rights, are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. This apart, respondent No.1 in the counter further states that he has verified the records and found that Rahmatnagar falls in the notified slum and the entire locality has come up unauthorizedly and none of the residents have proper title deeds/documents in their names, and most of the houses constructed do not have prior sanction/approval of the competent authority. Since the matter with regard to the alleged illegal constructions being made by the review petitioner, are subject-matter of civil suit, which is pending, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegal constructions being made by respondent No.2 or the review petitioner, as the case may be, is at liberty to get himself impleaded in the suit filed by the review petitioner against respondent No.1 and pursue his remedies. Be that as it may, even though the writ petitioner contends that respondent No.1 has violated the orders dated 22.04.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8360 of 2009, the fact remains, a perusal of the counter filed by respondent No.1 in the contempt case, would disclose that respondent No.1 upon receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, issued notice dated 09.04.2009 under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon the review petitioner to produce the documents and papers for verification for taking necessary action. Thereafter, pursuant to and in compliance of the orders dated 22.04.2009 passed by this Court, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 29.06.2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to respondent No.2, husband of the review petitioner, and that the same was even informed to the writ petitioner vide letter dated 01.07.2009, giving them seven days time to show cause why the constructions should not be demolished, and that they would take further action in the matter after considering the reply, in accordance with law. In view of the above averments made by respondent No.1 in the counter, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has violated the orders dated 22.04.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8360 of 2009. Hence, the contempt case is closed and the review petition, filed by the review petitioner, is disposed of by reviewing the order in the writ petition, with the observations as made hereinabove. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 30th December, 2010 KSR