IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21315 of 2011 Between: Dr. Syed Saleem Ahmed & another. … Petitioners And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy Counsel for respondents 1-3&5: Dr. Y. Padmavathi Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21315 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in demolishing the fifth floor illegally raised by respondent No.4 in premises bearing No.8-2-681, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing counsel, who appeared on 04.08.2011, represented to the Court that in pursuance of the notices issued under Sections 452(1) and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, a part of the fifth floor was removed and that the balance portion could not be removed due to certain problems faced at site. The case was therefore adjourned for reporting further action. Today, the learned Standing counsel reported that the entire structure on the fifth floor was removed by now. Even though Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka, learned counsel for the applicant in WPMP.No.28376 of 2011, submitted that his client has purchased the fifth floor on the basis of the development agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.4 under which the former has permitted the latter to raise construction at his own cost, I am unable to countenance this submission for the reason that it is not the pleaded case of the proposed respondent that the construction of the fifth floor was made by respondent No.4 under a sanctioned plan. If the proposed respondent feels aggrieved by the action of the petitioner and respondent No.4 in selling the flat to him, he is entitled to proceed against them in accordance with law. Inasmuch as the demolition of the unauthorised structure is stated to have been completed, no adjudication of the Writ Petition on merits is needed. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.25947, 28377 and 28378 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.08.2011 ES