IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 20335 of 2002 Between: A.Chandra Reddy S/o Visavanath Reddy R/o. S-3,2nd Floor, Sai Apartments, Shivaji Nagar,Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board. Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer A.P. Housing Board Vinayaka Nagar, A.P.H.B. Colony, Nizanabad, Nizamabad District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.H.B. Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Nizamabad, nizamabad District. 4 The Assistant Engineer A.P.H.B. Siddipet, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the avtion of the Respondens in not providing the passage/ street as shown in the initial proposed plan/ sketch and in not accomidating the petitioner providing alternative house in the L.I.G. or M.I.G. or any vacant open plot owned by the Resondents. pursuant to the representation dated 10-12-2001 as is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to provide passage/street as shown in the proposed plan/sketch or provide house in either in L.I.G. of in M.I.G.or any open plot owned by the Respondents in the proposed lay-out. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20335 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was allotted house No.LIG 28 in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) Colony at Siddipet, Medak District in 1991 on hire purchase basis. As per the approved lay out 33 feet wide road was provided in front of his house. When the petitioner went to take possession, he found that there was only 13 feet wide road in front of his house as road portion was encroached upon by third party. Therefore, he made a representation to ﬁrst respondent in June, 2001 for allotting alternative house or any vacant plot, in vain. Therefore, he ﬁled instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents either to remove encroachment at 33 feet wide road in front of his house or allot alternative LIG/MIG house or open plot. Opposing the writ petition second respondent filed a counter-aﬃdavit. Allotment of house and handing over possession of the same to the petitioner is admitted. Insofar as encroachment is concerned, it is stated that some portion of the land meant for 33 feet wide road near petitioner’s house was encroached upon by adjacent landowner, who ﬁled a suit being O.S.No.62 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, for permanent injunction. Therefore, necessary action for removal of encroachment would not be taken. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for APHB, this Court directed learned standing counsel to get instructions in the matter. After getting instructions, he submits that O.S.No.62 of 2001 was decreed in favour of owner of adjacent land and against APHB and that First Appeal ﬁled against the said suit was also dismissed. It is further stated that necessary steps are being taken to file Second Appeal. Having regard to the counter averments and subsequent events as noticed hereinabove inaction on the part of APHB cannot be readily inferred. Pendency of injunction suit appears to be the main cause for the respondents for not taking any action for removal of encroachment. Now that they suﬀered injunction decree, APHB has to explore all possibilities for getting the road portion near the petitioner’s house released. Learned standing counsel submits that the land was assigned by the revenue department and therefore, APHB may approach revenue department to cancel the allotment/assignment made in favour of the owner of adjacent land. Unless and until the person in occupation is evicted by due process of law, it is not proper for this Court to issue mandamus as prayed for. If so advised the petitioner may also approach second respondent as well as revenue authorities for necessary redressal. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14th October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Chairman & Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board. Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer A.P. Housing Board Vinayaka Nagar, A.P.H.B. Colony, Nizanabad, Nizamabad District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.H.B. Vinayaka Nagar Colony, Nizamabad, nizamabad District. 4 The Assistant Engineer A.P.H.B. Siddipet, Medak District. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KCS}