HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Writ Petition No.1157 of 2010 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not initating steps in furtherance of representations dated 28.10.2010, 27.12.2010 and grievance complaint No.36/11 dated 10.01.2011 to restrain the respondents No.2 to 4 in making further constructions in violation of sanction building plan proceedings No.B.A.No.13955/10/G2/ACP-II dated 27.12.2010 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the representations and also with further direction to the 1st respondent to demolish the illegal constructions made by respondents 2 to 4 in violation of sanction building plan vide proceedings No.B.A.No.13955/10/G2/ACP-II, dated 27.12.2010” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is absolute owner of property an extent of 268 square yards of land in which he constructed two portions bearing Door Nos.8-13-4 and 8-15-5 in Town Survey No.675 situated in Block No.25 of China Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Respondents 2 to 4, who are neighbours of the petitioner, have applied for sanction of a plan for construction of RCC building by demolishing the existing tiled house to the 1st respondent. Before sanctioning of such permission, the respondents started making VS, J W.P.No.1157 of 2011 2 constructions in their site and also encroached the land of the petitioner to an extent of 37 feet without leaving any set backs as provided under G.O.Ms.No.678 dated 07.09.2007. Immediately, the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 08.09.2010 along with the site plan stating that the respondents 2 to 4 are encroaching his land by showing some portion of the land on the northern side of his land as their set backs and requested the 1st respondent to implement the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Zoning Regulations. In spite of repeated requests, no action has been taken by the 1st respondent. Again the petitioner made a representation on 28.10.2010 to the 1st respondent about the unauthorised constructions of respondents 2 to 4. But no action has been taken so far. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation. This Court, on 28.01.2011, while admitting the writ petition, passed an order directing the 1st respondent to ensure that the respondents 2 to 4 do not make any constructions upon the area, shown as “site left for road widening” in the sanctioned plan. VS, J W.P.No.1157 of 2011 3 No counter is filed by the respondents. However, today when the matter came up for hearing, learned standing counsel stated, on instructions, that the respondent Corporation may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation said to have been made by the petitioner, if not already disposed. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 28.10.2010 and 27.12.2010 made by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law, if not already disposed of, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 05.05.2022 Ksn