Heard Sri M. Saleem, learned counsel for the v. Satyam Reddy, learned Standing

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 to / direct the respondents to act on the complaint submitted by the petitioner Dt. 18- 1-2016 and conduct enquiry and take action in respect of the illegal constructions undertaken by the respondent No.4 in respect of house bearing No.4-2-82 situated at Hatai gally of Nizamabad town and District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.SATYAM REDDY, SC FOR MPCL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER ( HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.2795 of 2OL6 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: declare the inaction of the respondents partia.Llarlg the respondent No.2 in acting on the amplaint submitted bg the petitioner dated 18.01.2016, as illegal and arbitrary and consequentlg, to direct the respondents to act on the complaint submitted bg the petitioner dated 18.01.2016 conduct enquiry and take action in resped of the illegal construction undertaken bg tle respondent No.4 tn respect of house beaing No.4 2- 82, situated at HataigallA of Nizamabad Town ond Dbtirct."

2. Heard Sri M. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Satyam Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.4-2-82, situated at Hatai gally of Nizamabad town. The respondent No.4, who is owner of adjacent house bearing No.4-2-82, has constructed house by occupying the public passage and repositioqing the drainage system. The petitioner has submitted arepresentation to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to which reply was submitted by respondent No.4. However, 2 respondent No.2 is not taking any action against illegal construction made by respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed a writ petition uide W.P.No.31363 of 2O15 to take action on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated

28.05.2014 and the said writ petition is pending.

4. Despite several representations made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has not taken any action on the illegal construction made by respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner herein f-rled the present writ petition.

5. Learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2, on written instructions would submit that petitioner has been persistently making repeated representations not only before respondent No.2, but also before higher authorities. He further submitted that earlier respondent No.4 submitted complaint against petitioner and basing on the complaint, respondent No.2 inspected the site and found deviations and dismantled the deviated portions of the pelitioner's building with the assistance of the police. He further submitted that basing on the representation dated 18.01.2016 submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice to respondent No.4 stating that he encroached into municipal lane by construcling a ba-lcony projection measuring about three feet. I , Respondent No.4 has submitted reply stating that his building was constructed long back in the year 1969 and that he does not possess the original building records, as they are not traceable due to long lapse of time. Learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 finally submitted that respondent No.2 will take further action on the representation dated 18.01.2016 submitted by the petilioner in accordance with law.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel and the fact that show cause notice has already been issued pursuant to complaint dated 18.01.2016 of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 to take further action strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P,C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 2 4 7 The Principal Secretary (Municipal Administration), Hyderabad, State of Telanoana. i[J'C'or*;li.tioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad Town' Nizamabad' Nizamabad District. The District Collector, Nizamabad One CC to SRI M.SALEEM, Advocate IOPUC] i*" CC.i" Cp fOC VrCpr_ AOnfil-UnAnru DEV, High Court for the State of Telanqana, at HYderabad. [OUTI i\U" icli" cp'rbn nivrruuE, High court for the State of Telangana' at Hvderabad. [OUT] iji,"-bdt" sntV.Snwev REDDY' sc FoR MPcL IoPUC] Two CD Copies PSK. TKS $\ HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 ORDER WP.No.2795 of 2016 i I \ HE SIA at o() 0 7 rt8 2u6 l l. * .-.(. I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS IA" e\\s'