BEZAWADA DURGA PRASAD Vs. PALAKOL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the inaction of the 1st respondent in taking further course of action pursuant to the notice, dated 20.02.2018, for demolition of the unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that as the 2nd respondent is making constructions in contravention of the approved plan and not only causing obstruction to the petitioners but also affecting their easementary rights, they submitted a complaint to the respondent authorities on 27.01.2018 and basing on the complaint given by the petitioners, a preliminary notice and a final notice dated 20.02.2018 were issued. The 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.41 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Palakol, questioning the notice, dated 20.02.2018, only to drag on the issue. As per Section 369 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, the 2nd respondent cannot maintain the said suit. Under the guise of pendency of the suit, the 2nd respondent is proceeding with the constructions. However, no further action is taken by the 1st respondent to stop the illegal constructions.