Smt. K.P. Chandini v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

[ 3166 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 1549 0F 2013 Between:

Smt. K.P. Chandini, Wo: late Vasantha Kumar, Aged 59 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, Ryo H.No.12-11-1581/1 , Raghavendra Nalar Warasiguda, Secunderabad ...PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Circle No.XVl I I Secunderabad.

d. Gouse, S/o: Mohd. Khaza, Aged 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o H.No.'12-11-158'1, Boudha Nagar Wdrasiguda, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1't respondent in not disposing of the representations dated l6-3-2012, 2-4-2012 and 18-12-2012, as intentional, illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, and abdication of their duties, and consequently direct the 1"t respondent to take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent for the illegal construction undertaken by disposing of the representations of the petitioner in the interests of justice. l.A.

NO: 1OF 2013(WPMP.

without any sanctioned plan at Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOTHAPALLI SAI SRt HARSHA counsel for the Respondent No.1: sRr. K RAVTNDER REDDY (sc FoR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. B. MAHENDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

i3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.1549 of 2013 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1* respondent in not disposing of the representations dt.16.03.2012, 02.04.2072 and 18.12.2012, as being illegal and arbitrary.

2.

When the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 - Corporatlon are consensus ad idem that the respondent authorities have acted upon the representations submitted by the petitioner by demolishing the encroachment and the unauthorized construction made by the unofficial respondent in the petitioner's property.

3.

Learned counsel For the petitioner further submits that the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent have entered into an understanding that each of the parties should not encroach into other's property in future.

4.

Having regard to the submissions made as above, since the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition has been duly

addressed by the respondents authorities, this Court is of the view that no further orders are necessary to be passed in the Writ petition. l 5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if I any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.V.KAV]THA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR s."r,oY6ir,".* To,

1. 9n" CC to Sri Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Sri K. Ravinder Reddy (SC for GHMC) tOpUCl -

3. One CC to Sri B. Mahender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies TJ sjp )r-'

\ //TRUE COPY//

HIGH COURT DATED:0511212023 1 e grAI€, o q v ,5 2u3 stI 2B i * oEsPl,.IC

ORDER

WP.No.1549 of 2013 s{ CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.