IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 623 of 2007 Between: Sri A. Bhoopal Reddy, s/o. Sri A. Bhim Reddy, R/o. 1-3-149/1, Shastrinagar, Nirmal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner, Nirmal Municipality, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 2 Town Planning & Building Officer, Nirmal Municipality, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 3 Sri A. Padmanabh Reddy, S/o. Sri A. Rajeswar Reddy, R/o. Adjacent to 1-2-388, Behind Zilla Parishad, Executive Engineer's Office, Mahadev Sitaram Petrol Bunk, Nirmal, Adilabad 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the inaction of the Respondent 1 and 2 in not taking action on the representations dated 24-11-2006 and 29-11-2006 of the petitioner is illegal, bad and ultra vires the powers of the Respondents 1 and 2 and as such direct the respondent 1 and 2 herein to forthwith ensure that the 3rd Respondent constructs strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MPAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY (SC FOR MPL) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 623 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by A.Bhoopal Reddy assailing the inaction of the Respondents 1 and 2 on his representations dated 24-11- 2006 and 29-11-2006 complaining the illegal constructions being made by A. Padmanabh Reddy-3rd Respondent. 2. The petitioner and the third respondent are neighbours to each other. The third respondent is proceeding with the construction on his premises bearing No. 5-10-17/2, Dharmsagar Tank, Nirmal. The petitioner submitted representation, dated 24-11-2006 complaining that the 3rd Respondent is proceeding with the construction in violation of the building plan sanctioned by the first respondent. Since Respondents No.1 and 2 did not take any action, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter. One K.Bhaskar has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2. Third Respondent also filed counter. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated by the Respondents No.1 and 2 in the counter that on provisional order and confirmation order as provided under Section 228 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 are passed and stopped further constructions on 13-12-2006 and seized the material available at the spot. In view of the direction given in W.P.Nos. 10909 of 1998 and 18526 of 2006. The respondents filed suit being O.S.No. 8 of 2007, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, seeking permission for demolition of unauthorized constructions made by the third respondent. 4. The counter of the third respondent in brief is that the third respondent filed O.S.No. 172 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal seeking injunction against the petitioner herein and obtained ad- interim order on 13-11-2006. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for Respondents NO.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents NO.1 and 2 having passed order under Section 228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act ought not to have filed suit being O.S.No. 8 of 2007 seeking a direction of the Court to proceed with the demolition of the unauthorized constructions. It is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents NO.1 and 2 that soon after receiving the representations from the petitioner, necessary steps have been taken as provided under Section 228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner in his representations dated 24-11-2006and 29-11-2006 have virtually been complied with. 7. Learned counsel appearing for third respondent submits that the construction made by the third respondent in accordance with the plan approved by the Respondents No.1 and 2 and therefore, the representations made by the petitioner dated 24-11-2006 and 29-11-2006 need no consideration. 8. A fact remains that the Respondents No.1 and 2 have taken action on the representations submitted by the petitioner on 24-11-2006 and 29-11-2006 and passed provisional order and confirmation order as provided under Section 228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. It appears two suits have been pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal one being O.S.NO. 8 of 2007 filed by the first respondent and other being O.S.No.172 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal. 9. Since the rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated by the Civil Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take further action pursuant to the confirmation order passed by the first respondent under Section 228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act as soon as suits are disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 9th June, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 623 OF 2007 9th June, 2008.