Smt Urmila v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between:

Smt. Urmila, W/o. Late Satyanarayan Singh, Aged about: years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.12-1-344, Part, Dattatreya Nagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

.. Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals No Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not considering the representation, dated 22.05.2015, made by the petitioner in respect of the illegal and unauthorized constructions being carried out by the 4th respondent by encroaching on the public road as illegal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for respondents 1 to 3 and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

3. Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of house bearing Municipal H.No.12-1-344, Part, situated at Dattatreya Nagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, having acquired the same by way of a registered Partition Deed bearing Document No.1458 of 2014, dated 02.04.2014. The 4th respondent, who is neighbour of the petitioner, is carrying out illegal constructions raised on the public road and also on the premises belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation on 22.05.2015 to respondents 1 to 3 about the illegal and unauthorized construction and also about encroachment on the public road and on the premises of the

petitioner made by the 4th respondent, but so far, no action is taken. Hence, this writ petition.

4. When the matter is taken up, both the learned counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to expeditiously dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.05.2015.

5. Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.05.2015, and after affording reasonable opportunity to the 4th respondent, 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: 3rd August, 2015 KL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

Date: 3rd August, 2015 KL