IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25580 of 2002 Between: Sugun Bai W/o. Kishanlal R/o. 14-2-150, (185), Shah Inayatgunj, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary A.P. Housing Board Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tankbund, Hyderabad .....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 declare the action of the respondents as illegal, irregular, without jurisdiction against the rules in issuing the impugned Memo.No. 4073/J3/70, dt. 26-11-2002/31-10-2002 issued by the 1st respondent by setting aside the same, by issuing a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.K.N.VIJAYA LAXMI Counsel for the Respondents: MS.G.SUDHA The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25580 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is in occupation of land admeasuring 54 sq. yards/46.00 sq. meters situated at Ghodeki Khabar, Shah Inayatgunj, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. She raised a tin roofed shed and living therein, statedly after obtaining permission from municipal authorities. In 1994 she made a representation to second respondent expressing her willingness to take the land on lease. It appears that second respondent agreed to lease out the land on a monthly rent of Rs.7/-. The petitioner also executed a rental agreement, which was allegedly conﬁrmed by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Subsequent thereto she also sought permission to construct a house. She obtained electric connection and started running a Kirana shop. In 2002 ﬁrst respondent issued the impugned memo dated 31.10.2002/26.11.2002 calling upon the petitioner to remove unauthorized encroachment in the land of APHB within ﬁfteen days. She was also informed that if she fails to remove encroachment action shall be taken under Sections 52 and 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity). This memo is assailed in this writ petition. Virtually the petitioner challenges a show cause notice that itself would not result in any civil consequences. As per Section 52 of the Act, the competent authority has to conduct enquiry and pass an order of eviction. Only thereafter the Bailiff of APHB would be entitled to remove unauthorized encroachment. Even before APHB referred the matter to competent authority the petitioner ﬁled instant writ petition apprehending forceful dispossession. Learned standing counsel for APHB does not dispute that unless and until APHB obtains an order of eviction from the competent authority under Section 52 of the Act, they cannot dispossess the petitioner. Therefore, while ordering status quo as on today, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to raise all her pleas before the competent authority as and when a notice of enquiry is issued by such authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14th October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Secretary A.P. Housing Board Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tankbund, Hyderabad 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}