B.K.Raghava Reddy v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40649 of 2015 06.01.2016 Between:

B.K.Raghava Reddy .. Petitioner and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.N.Sreedhar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr.Sampath Prabhakar Reddy standing counsel for of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Counsel for respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that the illegal construction raised by respondent No.4 is not being removed by respondent Nos.1 to 3.

This Court passed the following interim order on 28.12.2015: "Mr.Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), submitted that process for removal of the illegal structure has commenced.

Mr.N.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that since respondent No.4 has high political backing, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are balking in taking action.

The learned standing counsel for the GHMC has positively assured that by the next date of hearing the entire illegal structure will be removed.

In the light of these submissions, the case is adjourned to 06.01.2016. If, by the next date of hearing, the illegal structure is not completely removed as per law and a report in this regard is not filed, respondent No.3 shall be personally present in the Court."

Mr.Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, placed before the Court, the photographs showing that the new structure raised without permission has been completely removed.

Mr.N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while accepting that the new structure is removed, however, submitted that as the new structure was raised occupying a public street by 3 to 4 feet width, the same needs to be restored after removing the debris. In the light of the fact that the new structure laid by respondent No.4 has been removed, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to ensure that the public lane, if any, occupied by respondent No.4 is completely restored after clearing the debris of the structure removed.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.52486 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th January, 2016 GHN