IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26114 of 2001 Between: K.Satyanarayana S/o Narsimha Rao R/o Erramanzil, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner M.C.H., Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., Rep By Its M.R.O., Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Venkateswara Coop. House Buildings Society Ltd., A.P. Legislatures, M.L.A. Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondents in issuing notice in No.5322/TPS/ACP/C5/IV8/2001, dt.12.12.2001 as illegal, void, discriminatory and malaﬁde and consequently to direct the respondents to refrain from in any way interfering with possession and enjoyment of the building in Plot No.81/A/F of the sanctioned lay out of the 3rd Respondent Society. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26114 of 2001 ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. No counter is ﬁled by the respondents in spite of speciﬁc directions issued by this court on 22-08-2008. It is the case of the petitioner that plot bearing No.81/A/F was allotted by the 3rd respondent in the name of one Sri G.Sampath through registered Sale Deed, dated 25-06-1998 and subsequently, the same was purchased by him. It is stated that there was an encroachment of adjacent land by the vendor himself even before purchase of the said land and the petitioner is also in occupation of the said encroachment. While so, the Municipal Commissioner of Hyderabad, issued a notice, dated 12- 12-2001, stating that the petitioner encroached open space reserved for public purpose and made certain unauthorized constructions in the encroached land and, accordingly, he was directed to remove the said encroachment. It is further stated that no particulars or details about the encroachment has been furnished in the notice and the said notice is vague without any material particulars and, therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing notice, dated 12-12-2001, as illegal and arbitrary. As no counter is forthcoming and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the 1st respondent may be permitted to issue a fresh notice giving full particulars, the writ petition is disposed of keeping it open for the 1st respondent to issue a fresh notice giving particulars of the measurements of the encroached land etc., calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till then, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 06-09-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}