IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20617 of 2002 Between: 1 Chitla Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Chitla Mogulaiah, R/o H.No.1-22, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Chitla Sathyanarayana, S/o. Late Narsimhulu R/o. H.No.1-20, Meerpet Village, Ranga Reddy District. 3 C. Prakash S/o. Late Narsimulu R/o H.No. 1-20, Meerpet Village, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Vice Chairman, Hyderabd Urban Development Authority, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for Respondent No.1:MR. SASHIDHARAN NAIR FOR MR. RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in converting Public Park in Survey No.55 of Meerpet Village, Uppal Mandal, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, into Community Hall, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sashidharan Nair, learned counsel representing Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioners, who are the residents of Meerpet, is that contrary to the approved layout vide permit No.3065, letter No.3065/MB/H/94, dated 27.10.1995, respondent No.1 has used the open area earmarked for park for construction of Community Hall. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the fact that a part of the area earmarked for park was used for construction of a Community Hall is admitted. It is averred that after obtaining necessary approval from the authorities concerned, the said construction was made in 2001 itself and that the petitioners, who encroached into 100 feet wide road on the northern side of the layout, filed this writ petition in order to see that the respondents will not evict them from the encroached area. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Though the action of respondent No.1 in utilizing a part of the area earmarked for park in the approved layout is deplorable, to say the least, in view of the fact that the petitioners have approached this Court after completion of Community Hall, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage by ordering for its demolition. However, respondent No.1 is cautioned not to utilize the remaining land for purposes other than for which it is earmarked in the approved layout. Such an action would only lead to brazen violation of law and cause enormous harm to public interest. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni