WRIT PET IT ION No. 21410 of 2003 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

The petitioners allegedly purchased a house bearing No.4-8-68/A/19 (part of plot No.24), Putlibowli, Hyderabad, admeasuring 400 square yards under registered sale deeds dated 30.09.1988 and 15.10.1988 from Mohd. Iqbal and his mother, who got the property under a Will dated 23.12.1965 executed by one Syed Khaja Mahamood Ali. Petitioners allege that they obtained building permission from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) on 06.01.1995, and when they were constructing a new house, the Officials of the respondent came to their premises on 26.09.2003 and directed to stop construction. Therefore, they filed the instant writ petition and obtained interim order. A counter affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition and the respondent claims that the property in question belongs to Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, which was taken over from MCH and duly fenced. It is also stated that even before action could be initiated for eviction of the petitioners as per the procedure contemplated under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity), the present writ petition is filed.

This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners learned Standing Counsel appearing respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that there were proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in M.C.No.13 of 1965, on the file of the Court of the IV City Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, in which finding was recorded that third party was in possession of the property. Therefore, he submits that any interference without due process of law would be arbitrary and illegal. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that even before action was initiated for removing encroachments, the present writ petition is filed, and therefore, this Court may not entertain the writ petition. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which contains cause of action would show that very vague allegations are made by the petitioners. Secondly, it appears, before approaching this Court, petitioners made a representation to the Vice-Chairman of respondent on 26.09.2003, and even before the same could be acted upon, they rushed to this Court threat of stoppage of is a complaining construction.

When the respondent claims property as belonging to it, a person in encroachment, however strong to the claim of his title may be, ought to have waited before a final decision is taken by Andhra Pradesh Housing Board under Section 52 of the Act. If such person approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not only prevent the statutory authorities from proceeding according to the statute, but also postpone the decision as to nature of the property. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived. It shall be open to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board to initiate action under Section 52 of the Act and proceed further. As the allegation that Officials of the respondent stopped construction is denied specifically in the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to make any order, which would amount to injuncting respondent from proceeding as per the statute. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

22.09.2008 To 1. The Vice-Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}