IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO:2752 OF 2005 DATED:16.12.2010 Between: Grampanchayat, Machirevula Village, rep., by its Surpanch .....PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P. rep., by its Principal secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO:2752 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action against the 8th respondent to stop illegal activities of development and construction in the lands in Sy.Nos.84, 89, 91, 143, 185, 249, 256, 40, 50, 68, 124, 74 and 126 situated at Manchirevula village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Panchayaraj Act and A.P. Grampanchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002. This writ petition is filed in a representative capacity by the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat of Manchirevula village, Ranga Reddy District complaining that the 8th respondent is taking up constructions contrary to the building rules etc. While admitting the writ petition, in WPMP No.3706 of 2005 wherein injunction was sought for restraining the 8th respondent from developing and constructing buildings, this Court passed the following order on 12.6.2008: “This is an application to grant injunction restraining respondent No.8 from developing and constructing buildings in respect of the land in Survey Nos.84,89, 91, 143, 185, 249, 256, 40, 50, 68, 124, 74, 126 of Manchirevula village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Heard Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed. No counter affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in this application, I am not inclined to grant the said relief at this stage because more than 3 ½ years elapsed from the time of filing this application. The petitioner has not apprised this Court of the position existing as on today with respect to the alleged development and construction of the building by respondent No.8. In view of long lapse of time, this Court feels that balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the petitioner to grant an order of injunction against respondent No.8. It is, however, made clear that any development and construction carried on by respondent No.8 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. With these observations, this application is dismissed.” Now, it is more than five years since then. No counter is filed. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to work out its remedies as available under law, either by way of civil suit or representation before the appropriate authority. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated:16.12.2010 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO:2752 OF 2005 16.12.2010