smt.Dudala Vilasini, wo. D.Ramu v. Hyderabad

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to take action against the 3rd Respondent consequently demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction made by the 3rd Respondent. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 11512 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 1st and ind Respondents to take appropriate actions against the 3rd Respondents considering the representations made by the Petitioner pending disposal of the )bove writ petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WP P. NO: 15114 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to take appropriate actions against the 3rd Respondents for making illegal constructions on TRT No.73, Ground Floor, lndustrial housing Colony, Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad considering the representation made by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI N.VINESH RAJ counselfor the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: sRl G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, sc counselfor the Respondent No.4: GP FoR MGPL ADMN-URBAN DEV (TG) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: - The Court made the following: ORDER FOR GHMC . .,1:. &. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARA.YANA ALISHETTY UTRIT PETITION No.8718 of 2015 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.l and 2 to take appropriate action against respondent No.3 and to demolish the unauthorized construction made by respondent No.3

2. Heard Sri N.Vinesh Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. I and 2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owrrer and possessor of TRT No.74, first floor, Industrial Housing Colony, Jawaharttagax, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, having acquired the same vide gift deed No.3858 l2OL2 dated O6.12.2OL2. He further submits that respondent No.3 is the owner of TRT No.73, Ground floor, Industrial Housing Colony, Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, having acquired the sarne through Sale Deed No.4966 /2006. \ *-"l - \ \ 2 4' Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the owners and possessors of TRT quarters are bound by the conditions specified in Schedule B of the SaIe Deed. As schedule B of the sale deed, the purchaser should not make any construction without specific consent of the owner of the upper tenement or lower tenement and the space reserved for common purpose of the subject property is the propert5, of the Government and further the common passage of the stair case room reading to first floor shall be the common property of the a-llottees of the flats of first floor and shalr not be used for any other purpose without the consent of the other owners. 5' Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that contrar5r to the aforesaid terms mentioned in ischedure B of the sale deed, respondent No.3 has constructed compound wall and other structures encroaching upon the land meant for common use' Upon a compraint, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 demorished the said compound wafl and structures, however, respondent No.3 has again constructed compound wall and ;1 shed, thereby occupying the common area and arso causing .inconvenience to the ingres:,'*o egress of the occupants of the s;ubject property. Though, the petitioner submitted representations to respondent J Nos.l and 2, t:.o action has been taken. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 by referring to the counter submitted that pursuant complaints made by the petitioner on 02.03.2015 and O4.O3.2O15 against the illegal and unauthofized construction made by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.l and 2 have issued notice dated 09.03.2015 under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the GHMC Act, 1955 to the respondent No.3 as to why the said illegal construction shall not be removed and have also stopped the construction work being undertaken by respondent no.3. Therefore, the cause in the writ I I petition does not survive.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the stoppage of unauthorized construction being made by respondent No.3, the writ petition may be closed, however liberty may be granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if fresh cause of action arises.

8. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 artd 2, the writ petition is closed, however liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach appropriate authcrity, in case, fresh cause 'l 4 of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI N.V|NESH RAJ, Advocate tOpUCI 2. ONC CC tO SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN.RE-DD'V,_S-C-FON GHMC [OPUC] 3. Two ccs to cp FoR MCPL ADMN-URBAN bEV, Hig'h court for the State of . Telan_gana, at Hyderabad. TOUTI 4. Two CD Copies To PSK. PMK \ I / HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER WP.No.8718 of 2015 e o o :rr'rl Sr. r(' o c tl mu 2q5 * o e r cHE o (r z -{ CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *l't\o( \