THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18134 of 2006 Oral order: The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate action against the illegal constructions made by respondent No.3 in terms of the judgment dated 06.04.2004 passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 251 of 2003, preferred by respondent No.3 against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2003, passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the suit in O.S. No. 5825 of 2000, filed by him seeking permanent injunction. The appellate Judge while dismissing the above appeal preferred by respondent No.3 against the judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge dismissing the suit, gave the following directions: (i) The plaintiff shall submit his explanation along with a copy of this judgment to the Municipality for the deviations mentioned in the written statement within one month from today. (ii) Thereafter, the defendant corporation shall hear the plaintiff, pass a speaking order about the existence or otherwise of the deviations from the sanctioned plan and if there are deviations pass further orders either for: (a) regularizing the deviations permissible and/or; (b) compounding the deviations permissible and/or; (c) demolition of portions which would not come under clauses (a) and (b) above. (iii) If the plaintiff does not demolish the building, which is ordered to be demolished within the prescribed time or within the reasonable time to be given by the defendant corporation, the defendant corporation can itself demolish the same. (iv) The defendant corporation should pass appropriate orders within three months from today. (v) If the plaintiff does not file his explanation along with a copy of this judgment within one month or delays the disposal of the enquiry within three months, the defendant corporation can pass appropriate orders. The petitioner states that to implement the above judgment, he submitted representation dated 25.02.2005 to the official respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but no action thereon had been taken. Hence, the writ petition. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Assistant City Planner, has filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner himself had constructed the building without obtaining any permission and respondent No.3 had given a complaint stating that the petitioner encroached upon the common passage and constructed the stair case. That the petitioner apprehending that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may take action against the unauthorized constructions filed suit in O.S. No. 77 of 1995 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, which was decreed, and aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 preferred appeal in A.S. No. 179 of 1999, and the same was disposed of granting liberty to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate action against the petitioner. While so, the petitioner got the unauthorized constructions made on the ground floor regularized vide Permit No.20/190, dated 06.09.1996, subject to the condition that he shall remove the balcony and the encroachment made on the road and also the unauthorized constructions in the first floor. The petitioner once again filed suit in O.S. No. 291 of 1998 and the same was dismissed, and aggrieved thereby, he preferred appeal in A.S. No. 276 of 2001, which was also dismissed. However, the petitioner filed the present writ petition suppressing all these facts. It is further stated in the counter that pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal filed by respondent No.3, they have initiated action and demolished the encroachments on 25.02.2005. However, the petitioner again submitted another representation for removal of the alleged unauthorized constructions made therein. Acting on the said representation, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to respondent No.3 under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 on 18.11.2006, that they are not concerned with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, and that they will take action against the unauthorized constructions following the due process of law. The unofficial respondent No.3 also filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner in support of the writ petition. He referred to the civil disputes between him and respondent No.3 and the suits filed against each other, and the nature of orders passed by the Courts, as stated by the official respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the counter, which was referred to above. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. From the narration of the stands taken by the respective parties, it is clear that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, and both have filed suits and appeals against each other. Though the petitioner contends that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken action as per the directions given by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in A.S. No. 276 of 2001, dated 07.08.2003, the same is disputed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and it is their case that they have taken action against the unauthorized constructions, and that the petitioner himself had made illegal constructions, and that despite removal of the illegal constructions, the petitioner again made another representation, and acting on the said representation, they issued notice to respondent No.3. Since, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have already issued notice to respondent No.3 for removal of the unauthorized constructions, if any, it cannot be said that they are not taking steps to implement the orders passed by the Civil Court, referred to above. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 19th January, 2009 KSR