C.Ram Mohan, S/O.Late Balaiah v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

[3168 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 2959 OF 2013 Between:

C.Ram Mohan, S/o.late Balaiah, Occ Pvt. Employee, F|/o. H.No.25-31 , Thalla Basthi, Malkaiqiri, R.R.Dist.

...pETtTtoNER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

Smt.M.Y.Navanitha, D/o.Sri Janaiah, Occ Housewife, Rl/o.H.No.25-33, Thalla Basthi, Malkajgiri, R.R.Dist.

...RES'.NDENTS 1.

2.

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inaction of the 1st Respondent on the Representation Dt.22.12.2012 made by the petitioner against the illegal construction undertaken by the 2nd Respondent causing inconvenience and blockage of pathway as illegal and arbitrary l.A. NO: 2OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 3643 OF 2013 ) Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the 1st respondent to immediately stop the illegal construction of compound wall that is being made by the 2nd respondent in the common passage, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, otherwise grave injustice will be occasioned for me

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WVMP NO: 897 OF 2013) Between:

Smt.[/.Y.Navanitha, D/o.Sri Janaiah, Occ Housewife, R/o.H.No.25-33, Thalla Basthi, Malkajgiri, R R Dist'

...PETITONER/2"d RESPONDENT AND

1. C.Ram Mohan, S/o.late Balaiah, Occ Pvt. Employee, Rl/o.H. No.25-31, Thalla Basthi, Malkajgiri, R R Dist'

...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER

2. Greater Hvderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Malkajgiri,- HYderabad'

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 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 vacate the interim orders dated 1 .2.2012 in WPMP No. 3643 of 2013 in WP No. 2959 of 20't 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C. RAGHU, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. PANDU RANGA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

;r . f '@-i* '

'r'

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2959 OF 2013 ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. This writ petition is fiIed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not taking action on the representation dated 22.12.2O12 submitted by the petitioner complaining that respondent No.2 is making construction of compound wall without obtaining permission by blocking the road, etc.

3. Respondent No.2 hled counter contending that she never constructed compound wall without obtaining permission as alleged by the writ petitioner in the writ affidavit and she never blocked the way. She has filed a

suit vide O.S.No.1O66 of 1999 against the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction and the same was decreed on 21.06.2007. Petitioner did not prefer any appeal. She has a-lso filed a suit vide O.S.No.1135 of 1999 against GHMC seeking perpetual injunction and the same was also decreed on 18.04.2001. GHMC did not prefer any appeal. There are also specific findings in both the judgments and decrees that respondent No.2 never constructed compound wall and never blocked as alleged by the petitioner in the writ affidavit +. Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.t has produced written instructions dated 21.10.2024 of ACp-28 of GHMC, wherein, it is stated that they have inspected the site and found that there is no compound wall. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.2 constructed the compound wall is baseless.

J

5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, respondent No.l has already considered the representation dated 22.12.2012 submitted by the petitioner and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER / To, i, El: EE i: iHi Lffiffiffidt#iiJ$,ifi18's:v,,:L''lo" "r

4. Two CD CoPies BM MPw

HIGH COURT DATED:2411012024 1HE S 14 14 ( .,) 0 E JAI'I 2025 \

ORDER

WP.No.2959 of 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G *d"a Y* id-ilq