Ameena Begum vs. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18787 of 2012

ORDER**:**

This Writ Petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not taking steps for removal of the unauthorized constructions made by respondent No.3, by initiating action under Sections 436 to 443 and 461 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner claims that she is the owner and possessor of house bearing M.C.H.No.1-8-518/G of Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad, which is constructed in an area of 63 square yards.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.3, who is her neighbour, is making unauthorized constructions and is interfering with the rights of the petitioner and that, in spite of the same, no steps have been taken by the respondents for removal of such unauthorized constructions.

It is also stated that the petitioner filed representations/ complaints before the respondents for removal of the unauthorized constructions made by respondent No.3.

On instructions, it is submitted by learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that respondent No.3 has filed a suit-O.S.No.851 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and obtained injunction orders, dated 07.02.2011, in I.A.No.1046 of 2010. In view of the said injunction orders, further steps are not taken by the respondents.

If the petitioner is affected by the alleged

unauthorized constructions made by respondent No.3, she can as well implead herself in the suit filed by respondent No.3 and seek vacation of the injunction orders. When the injunction orders granted by the competent civil Court are in force, no directions can be given, at this stage, to the respondents to remove such constructions. Whether the structures raised by respondent No.3 are authorized or not is a matter which is seized by the competent Court.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

_______________________

05 th July 2012 DR