//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

questioning the inaction of the municipal authorities against illegal constructions inspite of notice, directions given to consider the application

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

Clock Tower, Secunderabad

Clock Tower, Secunderabad (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.8240 of 2012

 

Between:

 

Nakka Jagannadham

…      Petitioner

And

 

P. Ravinder and two others.

…      Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.8240 of 2012

 

ORDER:                                                

 

Questioning inaction on the part of the official respondents
2 and 3 on the representation/complaint dated 13.03.2012,
the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

 

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 1st respondent is his neighbor on Eastern side of his house.  It is his grievance that the 1st respondent is making illegal and unauthorized construction on 2nd floor over his house premises bearing
No.12-5-150/A, Bathukammakunta, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad by making projections and encroaching into his property and also affecting his privacy rights.  In this regard,
it is stated that he made a complaint on 13.03.2012 to the official respondents and thereafter, as there was no response, he also got issued a legal notice dated 16.03.2012, for which also there is no response from the official respondents.  Taking advantage of inaction on the part of the official respondents, the 1st respondent is making illegal and unauthorized construction with an intention to complete such illegal and unathorised construction.

 

It is further submitted that previously also the
1st respondent made illegal construction for which, he made complaint on 28.02.2009 to the 2nd respondent and as there was no response, he filed O.S. No.158 of 2009 on the file of the
XI Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, which was decreed and consequently, part of such illegal structures were dismantled by the Court bailiff vide orders in E.P. No.33 of 2011.

It is also submitted that immediately after execution of said E.P. again the 1st respondent started illegal and unauhorised construction by filing caveats and the 2nd respondent authorities, in spite of repeated requests, are not responding and taking any action against the 1st respondent in stopping the illegal and unauthorized construction.  Hence, the present writ petition.

 

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent is his neighbour making illegal and unauthorized construction by making projections and encroaching into his property and affecting the privacy of the petitioner.  In this regard, the petitioner made a representation/complaint to the
2nd respondent and as there was no response from the authorities, he got issued a legal notice on 16.03.2012 but there is no response from the official respondents authorities.  Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning inaction on the part of the official respondents on the complaint made by the petitioner.

 

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents 2 and 3 would submit that as it is a specific averment of the petitioner that he made a representation on 13.03.2012 and also got issued a legal notice on 16.03.2012 but there is no action thereon, therefore, the official respondents
2 and 3 may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the official respondents 2 and 3.

 

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he made representation on 13.03.2012 and 16.03.2012 to the official respondents informing that his neighbour, 1st respondent,
is making illegal and unauthorized constriction affecting his privacy, the official respondents did not initiate any action thereon.  Eventually, both the learned counsel submitted that the official respondents 2 and 3 may be directed to consider the representations stated to have been made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

 

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition,
at the admission stage, directing the official respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 13.03.2012 and 16.03.2012, stated to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks,
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due notice to the petitioner and also to the 1st respondent.

 

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

Date: 26.03.2012

LSK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: