IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 27851 of 2008 Between: K.Anand Kumar S/o.K.Babu Rao 2-2-647/273/5/1 C.E Colony Bagh Amberpet,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Ranga Reddy District 2 District Panchayat Officer Ranga Reddy District 3 The Secretary Medipally Grampanchayath Ghatkesar(M) R.R District 4 Sri S.Anji Reddy S/o Narsimha Reddy H.No.3-119/5/A/11 CT Colony Boduppal,R.R 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 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 3 not taking steps for demotion of illegal costruction made by the 4th respondent as illegal arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and direct the respondents No.1to 3 to demolish the illegal construction raised in plot No.388 in SY No.44,45,46 situated Medipally Ghatkesar(M) Ranga Redy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.RAMESH Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRI G.ELISHA, S.C. FOR R-3. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.27851 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in taking steps for demolition of the illegal constructions made by respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to demolish the illegal structures raised in Plot No.388 in Sy.No.44, 45 and 46 situated at Medipally village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 had purchased the land in plot No.388 admeasuring 416.67 sq. yards in Sy.No.44, 45 and 46 situated at Medipally village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide registered sale deed dated 04.10.2007 from one Ch.Venkateswar Rao and K.Suryaprakash Rao and is proceeding with construction of a residential apartment thereon without obtaining permission from the 3rd respondent-Secretary, Medipally Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and without leaving the setbacks and, therefore, the petitioner made a complaint on 26.09.2008 to respondents 1 to 3 requesting them to take appropriate action over the illegal constructions made on the subject land, but the respondents have not taken any action thereon. The petitioner contends that he also made a requisition on 26.09.2008 to respondent No.3 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for issuance of a copy of construction permission granted to respondent No.4 in respect of the subject land, but respondent No.3 failed to supply the said copy to him. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner had filed a civil suit being O.S.No.718 of 2008 against respondent No.4 and others for perpetual injunction and the same is pending. It is further stated that because of trade rivalry, the petitioner is harassing respondent No.4 and that the petitioner does not have any plot in the subject land. It is also stated that respondent No.4 raised constructions over the subject land after obtaining permission from the competent authority. So far as the allegation of not furnishing the particulars of construction permission granted to respondent No.4 in respect of the subject lands is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner has to approach the revenue authority for getting such particulars. In view of the aforesaid counter averments, particularly with regard to the stand taken by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner has already filed civil suit against respondent No.4 and that respondent No.4 is making constructions in accordance with the approved plan, I find no merits in this writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 11.06.2009 v v