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 MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 6908 of 2007 Between: D.Maheshwar REddy S/o.Ail Reddy, R/o.Sowkarpet, Tandur, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The STation House Officer, Tandur Police Station, R.R. District. 2 Veeraiah P.S. Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Municipal Council, rep. by its Commissioner, Tandur, R.R. District. 4 Smt.G.Vijaya Lakshmi D/o.G.Chandrashekar R/o.H.No.5-2-47, Ghanapur Ward, Tandur, R.R. District. 5 The Mandal rEvenue Officer, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Second respondent holding the oﬃce of the ﬁrst respondent in threatening the petitioner to withdraw his complaint dated 31.3.2007 addressed to the third respondent and the fourth respondent in making construction in petitioner's Thatched house admeasuring 168.00 Sq. yards in Survey No.111 of Tandur Municipality, Ranga reddy District as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the second respondent holding the oﬃce of the ﬁrst respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's thatched house admeasuring 168.00 Sq. yards in Survey No.111 of Tandur Municipality, ranga Reddy District and further direct the fourth respondent not to make any construction till the disposal of the objections ﬁled by the petitioner before the third respondent and further direct the third respondent to dispose of the objection in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 6908 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the Station House Oﬃcer, Tandur P.S in threatening the petitioner to withdraw his complaint dated.31.03.2007 made before the 3rd respondent- Commissioner of Municipality as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the 1st respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession in respect of his house situated in Sy.No.111 of Tandur Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and a further direction to the 4th respondent not to make any construction pursuant to the building permission dated.10.11.2006 till the disposal of the objections ﬁled by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Admittedly the 3rd respondent granted a permission in favour of the 4th respondent on 10-11-2006 for making a construction in plot No.24, VVHN Road, Tandur. Alleging that the 4th respondent obtained the said permission in petitioner’s plot by playing fraud, the petitioner submitted his objections on 31-03-2007 before the 3rd respondent and requested for cancellation of permission dated.10-11-2006. The petitioner alleges that in the meanwhile, at the instance of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent has been interfering with the disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and coercing the petitioner to withdraw his objections dated.31.03.2007. Hence this writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 3rd respondent the fact that such objections were raised by the petitioner has not been disputed. However, it is pleaded that since the 4 th respondent had already completed the construction, the objections raised by the petitioner could not be considered. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and having regard to the claim made by the petitioner in respect of the property in which the 4th respondent made construction, I am of the opinion that the 3rd respondent is not justiﬁed in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner only on the ground that the construction has already been completed. Accordingly without expressing any opinion as to the rival claims made by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, vide his representation dated.31-03-2007, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall also be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 22-10-2008 *TSNR