IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28528 of 2007 Between: G.E. Satyanarayana S/o.G. Mutaiah R/o. 6-2-370, Chintal Basti, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Commisioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Zonal Commisioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 5, Central Zone, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 4 The City Town Planner,, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 5, Central Zone, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 5 G. Hanumantha Rao S/o.Late Mutaiah R/o. 6-2-369, Chintal Basti, 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 may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in not taking action on the complaints of the petitioners dt.19-12-2007 marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-4 respectively and direct the respondent Nos 1 to 4 to forthwith demolish all the illegal, structure and constructions that are raised over premises bearing Plot No. 70, 8-1-293/E/1 St.No. 8 Sy.No. 335 Hussainshawali Darga, Shaikpet Village, without any sanctioned plan. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VEMPATIMALLIKARJUN SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents: 1.G.P. for Revenue (for R1) 2.Smt.Kalpana Ekbote (for R2 to R4) 3. Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur (for R5) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28528 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri E.Satyanarayana assailing the inaction of the respondents 2 to 4 and 6 in considering his representation complaining the illegal constructions being made by the 5th respondent. 2. Notice before admission was ordered on 10.03.2008. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and 6. Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.5. 4. Respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 ﬁled common counter aﬃdavit, whereas respondent No.5 filed separate counter affidavit. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondents 2 to 4 and 6 are not taking any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner complaining the illegal constructions being made by the 5th respondent and, therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the petitioner is no other than the elder brother of the 5th respondent and suits are pending before the Civil Court and status quo order is existing in favour of the 5th respondent and, therefore, the question of directing respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to act on the representation submitted by the petitioner does not arise. A further submission has been made that the 5th respondent has ﬁled an application seeking regularization of the constructions made by him and the said application is pending consideration with respondents 2 to 4 and 6. 8. The petitioner is no other than the elder brother of the 5th respondent. He ﬁled a suit being O.S.No.146 of 2007 on the ﬁle of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule property comprises of six items. He ﬁled an application seeking interim reliefs, but no orders are passed on the said interlocutory applications. While so, the 5th respondent ﬁled O.S.No.176 of 2007 on the ﬁle of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, when the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad attempted to demolish and had issued notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Act, and obtained status quo order. In view of the pendency of the status quo order granted by the Civil Court, respondents 2 to 4 and 6 are handicapped to take any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Once the status quo order is vacated, there can be no impediment to the respondents 2,3,4 and 6 to take further action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondents 2,3,4 and 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner, after vacation of the status quo order granted by the Civil Court, and take appropriate action. _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J) 31st July, 2008 v v