1 APHC010079172013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38411/2013 Between: K.ramanjaneyulu @ Driver Ramu ...PETITIONER AND Hindupur Municipality and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not taking action on the petitioner’s representation dated 17.12.2013 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to demolish the illegal and unauthorized constructions being carried out in Sy.No.406-2, RTC Colony, Hindupur Town, Anantapur District by respondents 4 to 7…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he and his brother acquired property in Sy.No.406-2 and other properties through registered gift deeds dated 27.09.1979 and 03.10.1979, bearing registered document Nos.2020/79 and 2153/1979 of the Sub-Registrar Office, Hindupur, executed by K. Eswaraiah. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties. When the 6th respondent and his other family members try to trespass into the said property, the petitioner filed O.S.No.138 of 2012, seeking permanent injunction and sought for temporary injunction with regard to the same site in I.A.No.481 of 2013. Consequently, the Court directed the parties to maintain Status-quo. But however, respondent Nos.4 to 6 were making illegal constructions in the said land. Though the petitioner made a complaint on 17.12.2013 to respondent No.1, no action has been initiated. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that after receiving the petitioner’s representation on 19.12.2013, the 1st 3 respondent has initiated the action as per the rules and requested the Tahsildar to submit Mandal Surveyor report on the schedule property, as per which the 6th respondent has constructed a house with the approved plan in B.A.No.106/2011/G2. The schedule of the 6th respondent property is tallied on the ground with reference to the registered gift settlement deed bearing No.5562/2010, whereas, S.Nos.410/1 and 410/3 are not tallied on the ground position. Further, the petitioner’s property is also not traced on the ground as mentioned in their gift deed document Nos.2020/1979 and 2153/1979. 4. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Sirisha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality. 5. On a perusal of the said counter affidavit, it is clear that the respondents have initiated the action after receiving the said representation made by the petitioner on 19.12.2013 by calling for Mandal Surveyor report. Wherein, it was concluded that the 6th respondent has constructed the house with the approved plan. But however, the said instructions do not disclose whether a reply has been sent to the petitioner’s complaint dated 17.12.2013. 6. In view of the same, inspite of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 17.12.2013, explaining as to what action has been initiated on the said representation, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks, from the date of copy of receipt of this order. 4 7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 24.01.2025 JLV 5 Subsequently, the said Eswaraiah sold some properties as house sites to various persons in the other survey numbers, but showing the boundary as the one in S.No.406-2. However, when the purchasers attempted to construct houses on the said property, the petitioner objected. Respondents 4 to 7 are also among the persons who purchased sites from K.Eswaraiah. When K.Eswaraiah was trying to grab the petitioner’s property through 3rd parties, the petitioner filed O.S.No.82/2011, seeking permanent injunction, against the said Eswaraiah. The plaint schedule includes Sy.No.406-2. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.403 of 2011, seeking temporary injunction and the same was granted after hearing both parties. Inspite of grant of temporary injunction, the defendant in the suit i.e., the said Eswaraiah tried to interfere with the property. Then we filed I.A.No.1194/2011 in I.A.No.403/2011 seeking police aid. After contest the same was ordered. The same was confirmed in the Hon’ble High Court subject to the outcome of the CMA preferred by Eswaraiah against the orders in i.A.No.403/2011. The CMA was also dismissed and the police aid is in force. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner is that after dismissal of the CMA, the respondent No.6 filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2012 claiming the house site purchased by his father claiming title through the said Eswaraiah. His case is that they purchased the site from the Vendee of Eswaraiah and he has got right and title to the said property on the ground that thexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6