HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29044 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action on the illegal constructions being made by the 2nd respondent by occupying the place earmarked for road, temple and well which is for the common use of the locality people, situated in Sy.No.47, Ward No.27, Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar, Adilabad, Adilabad District inspite of repeated representations submitted to the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and abuse of process of law and against the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to allow any illegal constructions in the place earmarked for public purpose in Sy.No.47, Ward No.27, Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar, Adilabad, by considering the representations submitted by the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. 3. It is stated that the petitioners are the residents of Ward No.27, Lalbahadur Shastri Nagar, Adilabad, that in their locality in Sy.Nos.45 to 47, the lay out was approved by the then Mavala Grampanchayat about 25 years back, that at the time of approving the layout, some place was earmarked for the purpose of common use, that the 2nd respondent and her husband who is happened to be a police constable encroached the site earmarked for the purpose of temple, well, road and park and started construction of the residential house, that on coming to know about the same, the petitioners have submitted a representations to the 1st respondent on 21.12.2009, but the 1st respondent has not taken any action on the said representations. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 2nd respondent and her husband who is a constable encroached the place earmarked for the purpose of temple, well, road and park and started construction of the residential house, that in that connection, petitioners made representations to the 1st respondent and that therefore, the 1st respondent has to take an appropriate decision on the representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with rules and regulations governing the provisions to make constructions and hence he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent contended that an appropriate decision would be taken on the representation dated 21.12.2009, submitted by the petitioners and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent encroached the site earmarked for the purpose of temple, well, road and park and started construction of the residential house whether such fact is correct or not, it has to be verified by the first respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent has to take an appropriate decision on the representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with rules and regulations governing the provisions to make constructions. Inspite of the petitioners submitting their representations on 21.12.2009 to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has not taken any action. Therefore, it is for the respondent No.1 to take an appropriate decision as to whether the respondent No.2 and her husband have encroached the site earmarked for the purpose of constructing the temple, well, road and park and started construction of the residential house. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take an appropriate decision on the representations of the petitioners as to whether the respondent No.2 and her husband have encroached the place earmarked for the purpose of constructing the temple, well, road and park and started construction of the residential house after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the representation of the petitioners is not available with the first respondent, petitioners can give fresh representation. In such case, first respondent shall take a decision with in four weeks after receipt of fresh representation. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 29.10.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29044 OF 2011 Date:29.10.2011 Gk.