IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 967 of 2008 Between: K. Shakuntala, W/o. K. Satyanarayana, R/o. Plot No. 37 H.No. 4-39-238, Hanuman Nagar, Jagathgirigutta, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 3 Smt. B. Laxmamma Yadav, W/o. late Chandra Mallaiah, R/o. H.No. 4-39-227, Hanuman Nagar, Jagadgirigutta, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.1 and 2 in not removing the public road encroachment made by third respondent at Hanuman Nagar, Jagadgirigutta, Kukatpally Municipality, R.R. District as illegal and unjust and consequently direct the ﬁrst and second respondents to remove the unauthorized construction made by the third respondent on the public road and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt. K. Shakuntala, with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner-the ﬁrst respondent and the Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality-the second respondent, in not removing the public road encroachment made by the third respondent, as illegal and unjust. The petitioner made a complaint to the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality on 21.11.2005 with regard to the encroachment made by the third respondent on public road portion. When the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, initiated action against the third respondent, the third respondent approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.20409 of 2005. When there is no action on the part of the second respondent in removing the unauthorized encroachments on the road portion, the petitioner herein ﬁled W.P.No.3343 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 10.12.2004. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said writ petition reads as hereunder. “Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and in the light of the material on record, without expressing any opinion with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.02.2002 in the light of HUDA approved layout furnished by the second respondent vide letter dated 17.12.2002 and to take necessary further steps in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after aﬀording due opportunity to the fourth respondent and to all the parties concerned.” The Kukatpally Municipality, initiated action and issued notice dated 15.06.2005 to the third respondent under Section 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’). The third respondent ﬁled W.P.No.20409 of 2005 assailing the action of the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, in taking steps for demolition of structures. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 27.09.2005. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder. “The petitioner is given liberty to ﬁle a representation/explanation to the notice, if not already ﬁled. The ﬁrst respondent shall consider the representation, and if necessary, inspect the area and take appropriate action against the petitioner as well as others, who have encroached upon the road as alleged. This exercise may be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the action is completed, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.” When the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, has not initiated any action despite the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.20409 of 2005, the petitioner herein ﬁled C.C.No.332 of 2006. The said Contempt Case came to be disposed of on 14.07.2007. The relevant portion of the order passed in the Contempt Case reads as hereunder. “After receiving notice, a counter-aﬃdavit was ﬁled by the Commissioner of Kukatpally Municipality, inter alia, stating that a notice was issued to Laxmamma Yadav on 15.06.2005 under Section 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and that she submitted a reply, which was found to be insuﬃcient. It is also alleged that the respondent Municipality visited the spot and directed Laxmamma Yadav to submit evidence of her ownership. The enquiry is still pending, and in the meanwhile, present Contempt Case is filed. As seen from the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Commissioner of Kukatpally Municipality, it becomes clear that the respondent Municipality failed to implement the orders of this Court within the time stipulated. However, it is justiﬁable for the reason that after receiving notice, Laxmamma Yadav submitted a reply, which was found to be insuﬃcient. She also failed to submit evidence. Presumably for the reason that Laxmamma Yadav should be given a fair opportunity, the Commissioner granted some more time for production of evidence. The same itself cannot be treated as Contempt of Court as immediate necessary action was initiated in a right direction. The Contempt Case is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.” Despite the directions given by this Court in earlier writ petition, the second respondent did not choose to pass any orders. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court once again invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The third respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that she made representation to the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality as per the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.20409 of 2005 and his representation came to be returned as incomplete. Para-9 of the counter affidavit reads as hereunder. “I further submit that as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dt.27.09.2005 in W.P.No.20409/2005, I made a representation to the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, which was returned as incomplete. I am an uneducated and illiterate woman and no male educated person is available in my house and hence all the above facts could not be brought before the Municipal Commissioner. This has been admitted by the authorities and the contempt petition ﬁled by the writ petitioner was dismissed. Since then the writ petitioner is deliberately and vexatiously causing harassment by ﬁling writ petitions when the authorities are yet to determine as to the encroachment and my application for grant of patta certiﬁcate is under consideration with the authorities concerned. I am one among the approved economically weaker sections, and having possession for the last 25 years in the present plot, I am entitled for patta. The writ petitioner with a mala fide intention is determined to disturb me from the possession of the present portion with a view to grab the same. The writ petitioner has already been in possession of some portion in the Deenabandunagar and with a greedy intention, she is abusing the Court process and indulging in harassment to me.” When the writ petition came up for admission with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted representation dated 21.11.2005 to the second respondent detailing the encroachment made by the third respondent, but the second respondent has not taken any action, which amounts to utter violation of the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petitions. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ﬁrst respondent submits that the petitioner has been in occupation of the site for quite a long time, and hence, she submitted an application for grant of patta in respect of the site in her occupation. It is evident from the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled in the Contempt Case No.332 of 2006 that the third respondent encroached a road portion and a notice has been caused on her under Section 192 of the Act. Such is the situation, the question of granting patta in favour of the third respondent in respect of the encroachment made by her on road portion does not arise. The representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2005 remained unattended. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 21.11.2005 keeping in view the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petitions and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 5th August, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 3 2 CD copies.