THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.10870 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of plot bearing No.12 situated in Survey Nos.97 and 147 of Nageshwara Rao Colony, Road No.4, Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 31.03.2000. While so, it is his grievance that the second respondent, who is the adjacent plot owner, is making constructions illegally and unauthorisedly encroaching the road abutting the petitioner’s plot, and though representations, dated 27.02.2006 and 07.05.2006, are made to the first respondent, namely, Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, in this regard, so far no action has been taken. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. This Court issued Rule nisi on 09.10.2006. However, as no counter was filed by the first respondent in the matter so far, this Court on 14.06.2010 granted one week’s time to file counter and in default, ordered appearance of the first respondent. Today, when the matter is taken up, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that during the merger of L.B.Nagar Municipality into the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, certain files were not handed over and they could not be traced out, and that the file with regard to the instant case was one among them. However, it is stated that in order to ascertain the true facts of the case, the Town Planning Officer inspected the subject site and as per the ground position, there is a kacha road and it is very difficult to ascertain the encroachment of the plot unless verified from the sanctioned plan, if any, or relevant documents of the second respondent. Therefore, it is stated that the first respondent issued a notice, dated 15.06.2010, under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ’the Act’) to the second respondent to furnish the sanctioned plan and relevant documents for verification within three days, failing which, further action will be initiated as per the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that since the second respondent is not residing in the subject premises, the first respondent sought to serve notice on the tenant, who refused to take the notice and even refused to give the address of the second respondent. Therefore, the notice was affixed to the premises and photographs were taken for the purpose of evidence. Thus, it is stated that further action will be initiated after verifying the documents and receiving the explanation, if any, from the second respondent, as per the provisions of the Act. The second respondent also filed a counter in the matter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that in spite of representations being made, the first respondent is not taking any action against the illegal and unauthorized constructions made by the second respondent in the subject plot. In the counter, it is categorically stated that the first respondent has already initiated action as per the provisions of the Act and issued a notice under Section 461 of the Act. But, at the hearing, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent that since the whereabouts of the second respondent are not known, there is delay in taking further action in the matter. Since the second respondent is being represented by a counsel, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent to serve a copy of the notice on the learned counsel for the second respondent. But, however, the learned counsel for the second respondent expressed his inability to take notice on behalf of the second respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to take further action in the matter as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:21.06.2010 VGB