IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10984 of 2002 Between: 1 Mohd. Fazalullah, S/o Mohd. Ghouse, R/o 18-8-586, kumarwadi, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad. 2 Mohd. Rahamatullah, S/o Mohd. Ghouse, R/o 18-8-586, Kumarwadi, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad. 3 Mohd. Inayatullah, S/o MohdGhouse R/o 18-8-586, Kumarwadi, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Additional Commissioner, Circle No.1, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Sardar Mahal Charminar, Hyderabad. 3 Assistant Commissioner of Town planning Section, Circle No.1, Mnicipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 4 Syed Hussain Ali, S/o Syed Yaseen Ali R/o 18-8-123/4//1, Moinbagh, Raiyasatnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3:MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not stopping respondent No.4 from excavating the earth for the purpose of construction of a cellar on the land belonging to him and situated adjacent to the petitioners’ property without permission from respondents 1 to 3. Heard Sri Mirza Saifulla Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No one appeared for respondent No.4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is stated that on the representation made by the petitioners, they issued letter bearing No.888/ACP/C-1/MCH/2002, dated 06.06.2002 calling upon respondent No.4 not to carry out further excavation and to fill up the excavated land. It is further stated that after receiving the said notice, respondent No.4 stopped further excavation. It is categorically undertaken that respondents 1 to 3 will not permit any construction in the premises in question without permission. In view of these unequivocal assertions made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the counter-affidavit, which are not controverted by the petitioners by way of any reply affidavit, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th MARCH, 2009. kvni