THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31806 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 and its subordinates in not removing the illegal construction made by respondent No.2 in his building bearing Door No.37-6-9 and not stopping the further construction contrary to the approved plan as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.1 to remove the illegal construction already made by respondent No.2 and not to allow him to proceed with the construction contrary to the approved plan for the said premises. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners inherited a residential house bearing Door No.43-3-35 at Market Street in the municipal limits of Kakinada, East Godavari District. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the premises towards north of their house. There is a compound wall in between the house of the petitioners and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 asked them to sell 10 feet width site to him for construction of building in his premises and as the petitioners refused to do so, he has been threatening to demolish their compound wall and encroach into their site and so the petitioners filed O.S.No.222 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada and obtained temporary injunction. From then onwards, respondent No.2 and his family members have been threatening to cause inconvenience to the petitioners by deviating from the sanctioned plan. Respondent No.2 failed to maintain the set backs, as provided in the building plan. The said constructions are covering the building of the petitioners and there will not be any ventilation and free flow of sun and air to their building. The petitioners got issued two legal notices to respondent No.1 and his subordinates on 31.07.2011 and 15.10.2011, but no action has been initiated by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 issued a notice under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 30.06.2011 to respondent No.2, but failed to take further action. As per the sanctioned plan, only ground plus first floor are permitted in the premises, but respondent No.2 has been constructing the second floor without permission. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that inspite of issuing a notice under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Act by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, the latter has not stopped the further constructions, which are being made illegally, and hence, he prays to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to demolish the building in question, if it is made contrary to the sanctioned plan. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that appropriate action would be initiated against respondent No.2, if he made constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan. 5. Inspite of service of notice to respondent No.2, none appears for respondent No.2. 6. Whether respondent No.2 has made constructions deviating from the sanctioned plan or not in the premises in question has to be decided by respondent No.1. As a matter of fact, respondent No.1 issued a notice, dated 30.06.2011, under Sections 452, 461 and 636 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that no further action has been initiated in furtherance of the said notice. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to take further action in pursuance of the said notice vide U.C.No.6/11 and take appropriate decision within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 26th December, 2011 Note:- Furnish C.C. within two days. B/O AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31806 OF 2011 Date:26.12.2011 AMD