IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13513 of 2006 Between: A.Jagannath Swamy, s/o Lakshmaiah, r/o H.No.4-62, Machabolarum, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissionr, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District at Alwal. 2 The Secretary to Govt.of A.P., rep., by Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned notices P.O.N.O.G/UC/MCA 10/T.P.B.0I/06 dated 09-05-2006, P.O.N.O.G./UC/MCA 10/T.P.B. 0I//06 dated 09- 05-2006, C.O.NO./UC/MCA 10/T.P.B.O.-I/2006 dated 03-06-2006, C.O.NO./UC/MCA/9/T.P.B.O-I/06 dated 03-06-2006 and C.O.NO.UC/MCA/8/T.P.B.O-I/06 dated 03-06-2006 in respect of the house bearing No.2-4-63/B, situated in Ramalingeswaranagar, Machabolarum, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District as being arbitrary, malaﬁde, illegal as opposed to Article 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 323 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent Alwal Municipality to act in accordance with law in dealing with the similarly placed cases while taking steps to remove encroachment in public parks, open spaces and roads and 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.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1:MR. R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL OF GHMC. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by A.Jagannath Swamy assailing the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the notices under Sections 228 (1), (2) & (3) of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) r/w. Ss.40, 42(5), 43(5)&(6), 44 and 51 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 200 sq. yards in S.No.132/1 situated at Ramalingeswara Nagar, Machabolarum, Alwal Municipality, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 15.09.1997. The 1st respondent Municipality issued notices to the petitioner under Sections 228 (1) & (2) of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) r/w. Ss.40, 42(5), 43(5)&(6), 44 and 51 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 dated 09.05.2006 and followed by conﬁrmation order (Notice) under Section 228(3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, dated 03.06.2006. These two notices are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Notice before admission came to be issued on 06.07.2006. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent issued notices impugned in the writ petition as the son of the petitioner ﬁled a representation to the 1st respondent complaining some illegal constructions around the graveyard. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner as provided under Section 228(1) & (2) of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) r/w. Ss.40, 42(5), 43(5)&(6), 44 and 51 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, directing him to remove the unauthorized constructions made by him. Since the petitioner failed to comply the provisional order, conﬁrmation order came to be passed under Section 228(3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner ﬁled an appeal as provded under Section 345 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 assailing the provisional order and conﬁrmation order passed by the 1st respondent. In which case, the petitioner has to pursue the appeals ﬁled by him. Therefore, invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the given facts and circumstances of the case is not warranted. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd October, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}