IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6779 of 2004 Between: APSRTC Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Director of Town & Country Planning, Andhra Pradesh, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 2. Commissioner of Municipal Council, Medak Municipality, Medak. 3. Nagarjuna ..... RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is an Employees Co-operative Housing Society of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (For Short ‘Society’). In this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Society seeks a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent-Commissioner of Municipal Council, Medak Municipality at Medak, in not taking action pursuant to letter No.2138/04/H2, dated 20.03.2004, issued by the first respondent- Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner-Society claims ownership and possession over an extent of Ac. 2.00 of land covered by Survey No.145 in the limits of Medak Town and District. It is stated that the said property was purchased by registered Sale Deed No.1054/83, dated 08.07.1983, from its earlier owner. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Society that though it obtained approval of lay out from the competent authority, the third respondent has started illegal constructions thereon and as such, it complained to the first respondent by way of representation, dated 08.03.2004. It is stated that the first respondent-Director of Town and Country Planning issued letter No.2138/04/H2, dated 20.03.2004, instructing the second respondent-Municipal Commissioner, Medak, to take appropriate action in the matter. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Society that in spite of such instruction by the first respondent-Director of Town and Country Planning, the second respondent-Commissioner is not acting thereon. 5. No counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent- Commissioner of Municipal Council, Medak. 6. A separate counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated therein that he has purchased a site admeasuring about 250 square yards, in Survey No.145/1, situated at Medak, by a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1151 of 2000, dated 20.12.2000; that though he is constructing a house in the said site after obtaining due permission from the local authority, the petitioner-Society filed suit in O.S.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Medak, seeking perpetual injunction orders and complaining interference by the third respondent; that as the petitioner-Society precisely failed in its attempt to get injunction order in the Civil Court on 05-03-2004, subsequently, it made a false complaint on 08-03-2004 and obtained letter, dated 20-03-2004, from the first respondent by exerting political influence and filed this Writ Petition to overcome the order of the Civil Court. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that there is a dispute with regard to identity of the properties in question. While it is the case of the petitioner-Society that it is the owner and possessor of Ac. 2.00 of land, in which it has obtained approval of lay out, and that the third respondent is making illegal constructions therein, it is the case of the third respondent that he is constructing a house in his own site admeasuring 250 square yards purchased by him under registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1151 of 2000, dated 20.12.2000, and that the same is outside the area of Ac. 2.00 claimed by the petitioner-Society. 9. In view of the factual disputes, which arise for consideration, in the absence of any evidence, it is not possible to record any finding in this Writ Petition. Inasmuch as the petitioner-Society has already filed suit in O.S.No.10 of 2004, it cannot seek any direction based on the letter issued by the first respondent. It appears that the instructions, referred to in the said letter, were issued only by referring to the representation made by the Vice President of the petitioner-Society but not after making any enquiry. In view of the ex parte instructions issued by the first respondent in letter, dated 20.03.2004, it cannot be said that the second respondent is not taking any action pursuant to the said instructions. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) Date: 13th August, 2009 KL/LUR