B.Hari Kishan v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

Between:

B. Hari Kishan, S/o. Late Sri Bhonagiri Mallaiah, Aged 49 years, R/o. Flat No.201, Eternal Apartments, H.No.17-1-383/77/201, Vinay Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Near IS Sadan, Hyderabad.

.. Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Rep. through its Commissioner & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of first respondent in not considering the representation, dated 23.07.2015, made by the petitioner for demolition of illegal structures raised by 2nd respondent in premises bearing No. 17-1-138/78/A, situated at Vinay Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Near IS Sadan, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the first respondent to forthwith act upon the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.07.2015, and take immediate action against the illegal structures raised by the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for the 1st respondent and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

3. Petitioner claims to be resident of Flat No.201 in Eternal Apartments bearing Premises No.17-1-383/77/201, stiatued at Vinay Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Near IS Sadan, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, is resident of an old house bearing No. 17-1-138/78/A, situated at Vinay Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Near IS Sadan, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims that in June,

2015, the 2nd respondent and her family members started making constructions in the property belonging to them by covering the setbacks which are in existence, which is causing great inconvenience to the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the Grievance Cell of the first respondent on 10.07.2015 and 16.07.2015 and the petitioner also sent several reminders on 17.07.2015, 21.07.2015 and 22.07.2015. As there was no response, when the petitioner approached the office of the first respondent, he came to know that no permission was granted to the 2nd respondent for making constructions.

Therefore, the petitioner gave a detailed complaint to the first respondent on 23.07.2015, but so far, no action is taken and the same is pending.

4. When the matter is taken up, both the learned counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to expeditiously dispose of the complaint of the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (1st respondent) to consider the complaint of the petitioner, dated 23.07.2015, and after affording reasonable opportunity to the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders, as warranted under law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if

any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 14th August, 2015 KL

Date: 14th August, 2015 KL