WP/1040/2010 of Lateefunnisa Begum, Vs The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad, on 29 December 2011

O R D E R:

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4in allowing the respondents 5 to 10 to proceed withconstruction on plot No.627/A part of Survey No.128/1and 5 which is described as H.No.8-3-228/678/1528 and1703 admeasuring 279 square yards, Sriramnagar,Yousufguda, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary andconsequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to allowany construction on the aforesaid property by therespondents 5 to 10.

2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed insupport of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows:

The petitioner and his other family members areowners of the aforesaid property and are enjoying thesame. All of sudden, respondents 5 to 10 approached thesite and tried to grab the same with fabricated, sham andfictitious documents. The petitioner & others filed O.P.No.409 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Additional ChiefJudge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which wasdisposed of on 2.5.2006. Aggrieved by the same, therespondents 5 to 10 filed L.G.A. No.22 of 2006 on the fileof the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, which remanded the matterto the trial court. When the respondents 5 to 10 tried toproceed with illegal constructions, the petitioner lodged acomplaint with the respondents 1 to 4 not to allow therespondents 5 to 10 to proceed with construction. Due toinaction of the official respondents in taking appropriate action, the respondents 5 to 10 are proceeding withconstruction without any sanctioned plan or permission. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit denyingaverments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia asfollows.

The site in question falls in a slum area. Theunofficial respondents have already completed theconstruction. After receipt of complaint, the officialsinspected the site and found that the unofficialrespondents are making illegal construction and issuednotice. But, the unofficial respondents approached thecourt of law against the said notice and obtained interimorders, and so, action could not be taken against theunofficial respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition is liableto be dismissed.

4. Though it is stated that the respondent no.5 diedduring pendency of the Writ Petition, no steps have beentaken. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed against therespondent no.5.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1to 4 and the counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to10.

6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Therespondents 5 to 10 made illegal construction in the site inquestion without sanctioned plan. As the respondents 6 to10 filed a suit and obtained interim orders, therespondents 1 to 4 could not proceed further in pursuance of the notice issued by them. Now that, the suit itself isdismissed, there is no impediment for the respondents 1to 4 to proceed against the respondents 6 to 10 inaccordance with law.

7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directingthe respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representation ofthe petitioner and verify whether the respondents 6 to 10made any constructions illegally without any sanctionedplan or contrary to the sanctioned plan in the site inquestion and take appropriate decision in accordancewith law after giving opportunity to the respondents 6 to 10. No costs.

29.12.2011DRK

________________

(K.C.BHANU, J.)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2010

Date: 29.12.2011