IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12787 of 2002 Between: Boggarapu Rama Murthy Setty, S/o. Shri Appala Raju, R/o. Golla Veedhi, Anakapalli. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Anakapalli Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Badampudi Nooka Raju, S/o. The Late Sri Bhimudu, R/o. New Colony, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam 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 may be pleased to issue any writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in permitting the encroachment of the 2nd respondent as illegal and contrary to Sections 189 to 192 of AP Municipalities Act, 1965 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to remove the encroachment made by the 2nd respondent on the southern side of the petitioner's building forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12787 of 2002 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased a house bearing Door No.12-5-65 situated at Ratnayammapeta alias Baruvari Street within Anakapalli Municipal Limits, Anakapalli, for a valuable consideration with an intention to construct a new building with RCC roof and accordingly obtained permission for converting Madras Terace to RCC Roof vide proceedings in BA No.13/2002, dated 14-03-2002, and demolished the old roof of the building and started construction of RCC roof. While so, the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the southern side of the property of the petitioner, constructed a thatched house encroaching upon the road margin and thereby prevented the access to the petitioner’s building. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation in the month of March, 2002 for removal of illegal encroachment. Instead of removing the encroachment, 2nd respondent approached the civil court and filed a suit O.S.No.143 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, and obtained an injunction. If that be so, unless the civil suit is considered and disposed of, the question of removal of illegal encroachment does not arise, as any such removal will be contrary to the injunction order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take every endeavour to get early disposal of the suit O.S.No.143 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli and if the 2nd respondent fails in his attempt to protect the illegal encroachment, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent for removal of illegal encroachment. Further, it is also open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the 1st respondent and on filing such representation, if no suit is pending, the 1st respondent may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 18-04-2008 Prv .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}