IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26645 of 2008 Between: V. Bala Bai, W/o. Late V. Ramachander Rao, R/o. 13-3-1103/268, Opp : Veera Hanuman Temple, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by Commissioner, O/o. Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Town Planning Officer, GHMC, Circle -IV, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3 P. Rajender Rao, S/o. Late Jaggaiah, R/o. 13-3-697, Opp : Veera Hanuman Temple, Jiyaguda, 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondents in not taking any action against Respondent No. 3 who is indulging in unauthorized and illegal construction over premises No. 13- 3-697, situated at Opp: Veera Hanuman Temple, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents to take immediate steps, inspect the premises and demolish the unauthorized construction being made by Respondent No. 3 over premises No. 13-3-697, situated at Opp: Veera Hanuman Temple, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad, and to grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The case of the petitioner is that her late husband purchased an open piece of land admeasuring 137 sq. yards in Municipal Ward No.13-3 situated at Jiyaguda, under a registered sale deed dated 8.7.1965, and after obtaining permission from Municipal Corporation, constructed a residential building bearing No.13-3-697. She further asserts that towards east of her premises, there is a house belonging to one Papanna, and between the houses of Papanna and the petitioner, there is a common strip of land (Seri). While so, the 3rd respondent purchased the house of Papanna. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, without leaving any set back, unauthorizedly raised 15 feet height wall encroaching the strip of land, and is also seeking to open windows and doors thereby obstructing the petitioner’s privacy. Now, it is her grievance that she made a representation, dated 22.11.2007 to the 2nd respondent-Town Planning Officer requesting him to stop the unauthorized constructions being made by the 3rd respondent, but so far, no action has been taken. Challenging the action of the respondents 1 and 2, this writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, and both of them agreed to the disposal of the writ petition, with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent-Town Planning Officer is hereby directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.11.2007 and pass appropriate orders thereon after issuing notice to the 3rd respondent and after taking into consideration the explanation that may be submitted by the 3rd respondent, expeditiously.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th January, 2009 bcj