JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Assailing the proceedings in Lr. No. AE / OP/ TSSPDCL / TARANAGARJ / D.No.523 / 19-201, 22.08.2019, issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has also sought a consequential direction to the respondents to shift the transformer from her plot bearing No.532 of Netaji Nagar Colony, Nallagandla Village, Sheri Lingampally Mandal, R.R. District. 2. Heard Sri Jagadeeshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It is contended by Sri Jagadeeshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Vijay Panuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the of plot bearing No.532 admeasuring 60 square yards in Sy.No.195, situated at Nallangandla Village, Sheri Lingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner has purchased the said plot through an agreement of sale dated 24.01.2018. It is the further contention of the petitioner that her vendor's vendor constructed a thatched house. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner with an intention to construct a house in the said plot, removed the thatched house. The Municipal authorities dumped some material in her plot and the same was removed. She has also requested the respondents 3 and 4 herein for removal of transformer installed in part of her plot and agreed to pay the necessary charges for shifting of the same. The respondents vide proceedings dated 05.02.2019 accorded permission for shifting of the same and directed the petitioner to pay the amount for shifting of the transformer. The petitioner has also paid the same and thereafter, work was commenced to shift the transformer to the adjacent place where there is no hindrance. The petitioner has also constructed base for installing transformer and other material. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner that the respondents 3 and 4 instead of shifting the transformer to the new place, addressed letter dated 22.08.2019 to her stating that they have received a compliant from the local people objecting for shifting of the transformer on the ground that the petitioner is claiming right over the property on the strength of fake documents. Therefore, the 4th respondent, vide his letter dated 22.08.2019 requested the petitioner to solve the issue with the Revenue people and local bodies, so that the shifting can be done in a peaceful manner. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the open plot No.532 in Sy.No.195 admeasuring 60 sq. yards of Nallagandla Village and she has filed the documents including the link documents. Therefore, according to the petitioner, some vested interested persons including the Association people made complaint dated 21.08.2019 to the respondent authorities with all false and baseless allegations. The respondent authorities without making proper enquiry, issued the impugned proceedings asking the petitioner to resolve the issue with the Revenue people and local bodies. The petitioner would further submit that she has already paid necessary charges pursuant to the proceedings dated 05.02.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and work was commenced to shift the transformer. The respondent officials have also constructed base for installation of the transformer and other material. In proof of the same, she has filed photographs. Even then, the respondents instead of proceeding with the shifting of the transformer to a new place, issued proceedings dated 22.08.2019 without making proper enquiry. Due to non-shifting of the transformer from the petitioner's property, she is not in a position to construct the house in her plot. Therefore, the present writ petition. 6. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. 7. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents have granted sanction vide proceedings dated 05.02.2019 for shifting of transformer from plot No.532 and the petitioner was directed to pay supervision charges. The petitioner got RCC transformer plinth constructed at the place where the transformer is supposed to be shifted. 8. It is further contended by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents that Netaji Nagar Colony Residents Welfare Association where plot No.532 is situated, have filed the objections vide their letters both dated 21.08.2019 stating that the land where the transformer is presently existing is the government land and it does not belong to the petitioner. The GHMC vide letter dated 07.02.2019 informed that the CC road has been laid covering part of Plot No.532. The said road is being utilized by the residents of the colony. The GHMC vide letter dated 07.02.2019 informed that the CC road has been laid covering part of Plot No.532. The said road is being utilized by the residents of the colony. In view of the said objection of the said Association, it is the obligation on the part of the petitioner to resolve the same to enable the respondent authorities to shift the transformer. Therefore, with the said instructions, the 3rd respondent has issued letter dated 22.08.2019 informing the petitioner to resolve said issue with the Revenue people and local bodies. The petitioner, instead of resolving the issues, approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. The respondents have filed copies of two representations both dated 21.08.2019 and also photographs in support of their contention. 9. On perusal of the entire material, according to the petitioner, plot No.532 in Sy.No.195 admeasuring 60 sq. yards, situated at Nallagandla village, Seri Lingampalli Mandal was originally allotted to one Ranga Swamy S/o. Chinna Swamy by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division vide proceedings No.B/553/89, dated 25.11.1992. The said Ranga Swamy sold the said property to Smt. E. Swayam Prabha W/o.E. Srinivas Reddy under an unregistered sale deed dated 06.03.2007, who inturn sold the said plot to the petitioner under an unregistered sale agreement dated 24.01.2018 with absolute possession. The copy of the allotment letter dated 25.11.1992 is filed along with the writ petition. In the said proceedings dated 25.11.1992, it is mentioned that the said property cannot be alienated without prior permission by the RDO for 10 years. Said Ranga Swamy has sold the said property to Smt. E. Swayam Prabha vide unregistered sale deed dated 06.03.2007 i.e. after 15 years. The petitioner has purchased the said property under an unregistered sale agreement with absolute possession dated 24.01.2018 from the said Smt.E. Swayam Prabha. 10. The petitioner has requested the respondent authorities to shift the transformer to some other place and accordingly, the respondent authorities have granted sanction vide proceedings dated 05.02.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid the supervision charges and the petitioner got RCC transformer plinth constructed at the place where the transformer is supposed to be shifted. At that stage, the Netaji Nagar Residents Welfare Association has submitted the above said two representations, both dated 21.08.2019 objecting for shifting of the transformer. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid the supervision charges and the petitioner got RCC transformer plinth constructed at the place where the transformer is supposed to be shifted. At that stage, the Netaji Nagar Residents Welfare Association has submitted the above said two representations, both dated 21.08.2019 objecting for shifting of the transformer. On perusal of one of the said representations, dated 21.08.2019 signed by the President of the Association, it is stated that transformer was established five yeas back near the Temple. There was no complaint from any person including the petitioner. Thereafter, the Municipal Authorities have also laid road. Therefore, the Association requested the 2nd respondent not to shift the transformer. 11. The very same Association and others have made another complaint dated 21.08.2019 to the 4th respondent singed by the President, General Secretary and others stating that in the place where the present transformer is situated, a road was laid by the Municipal Authorities and one year back one person came and started making construction in the said place and therefore, the Revenue Officials made enquiries and came to the conclusion that the said person claiming right over the said property basing on false documents and revenue authorities stopped the construction activities. Basing on the very same fake documents, the respondent authorities have sanctioned electricity connection to the very same person. With the said allegations, they have requested not to shift the transformer keeping in view the low voltage issue in the colony. 12. On perusal of the said two representations, both the representations are submitted by the Netaji Nagar Residents Welfare Association, bearing Registration No.2217/2012. In one representation, one Bheri Ramchander Yadav and Uppari Krishna Sagar are claiming that they are President and General Secretary of the said Association. In the other representation, dated 21.08.2019 submitted by the very same Association, one U.Shekar and one A. Venkatesh Goud are claiming as President and General Secretary of the very same Association. On perusal of the said representations, the office bearers are entirely different. It appears that two sets of office bearers are claiming that they are the office bearers of the very same Association. The contents of both the complaints dated 21.08.2019 are different. On perusal of the said representations, the office bearers are entirely different. It appears that two sets of office bearers are claiming that they are the office bearers of the very same Association. The contents of both the complaints dated 21.08.2019 are different. In one of the complaint, though it is stated that the Revenue Authorities on conducting enquiry came to a conclusion that the petitioner has created false documents and claiming right over the property and therefore, the Revenue Authorities stopped the construction activities, they have not filed any such proceedings or report of the enquiry. As per the said complaint, the respondent authorities have already issued power connection to the petitioner. No complaint was made against the petitioner to the respondent authorities with a request to cancel the power supply to the petitioner's property. In another complaint, it is stated that road was laid in front of the temple. In the said representation there is no mention about the petitioner claiming right over the above said plot basing on fake documents. 13. As per the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, the respondents have already granted sanction vide proceedings dated 05.02.2019 and the petitioner was directed to pay the supervision charges and it is the duty of the petitioner to get the necessary construction made to shift the transformer. Accordingly, the petitioner got RCC transformer plinth constructed at the place where the transformer is supposed to be shifted. The photographs filed by the 3rd respondent along with the counter and also the photographs filed by the petitioner would show that the petitioner got RCC transformer plinth constructed at the place where the transformer is supposed to be shifted. Entire work is completed, except shifting of transformer. Even according to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has already paid the supervision charges. 14. As stated above, shifting of transformer was stalled on the two complaints, both dated 21.08.2019 submitted by the said Association. The contents of the said Association are contradictory and two sets of office bearers are claiming that they are the office bearers of the Association. The respondent authorities without verifying the same, requested the petitioner to solve the issue with the Revenue people and the local bodies to enable the respondents to shift the DTR in a peaceful atmosphere. The contents of the said Association are contradictory and two sets of office bearers are claiming that they are the office bearers of the Association. The respondent authorities without verifying the same, requested the petitioner to solve the issue with the Revenue people and the local bodies to enable the respondents to shift the DTR in a peaceful atmosphere. Though it is mentioned in the proceedings dated 22.08.2019 issued by the 4th respondent that in the complaint, the Association people informed that the petitioner is claiming right over the above said property basing on fake documents as per the Revenue officials, the 4th respondent did not ask the Association office bearers to produce the proceedings issued by the Revenue officials. Without making at least preliminary enquiry to ascertain the allegations made by the above said Association, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2019 asking the petitioner to resolve the issue with the Revenue people and the local bodies. 15. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that it is the obligation of the petitioner to solve the problem regarding shifting of the transformer to a new place, the respondents have not shown as per which it is the obligation of the petitioner to solve the problem regarding shifting of the transformer to a new place. In the absence of the same and without conducting the preliminary enquiry/ investigation as to the genuinity of the allegations made by the above said Association and also without ascertaining the fact that the two sets of office bearers are claiming that they are the office bearers of the said Netaji Nagar Residents Welfare Association, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings requesting the petitioner to resolve the issue with the Revenue people and local bodies. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2019 are not sustainable. 16. It is also relevant to note that the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-20, GHMC vide his proceedings dated 07.02.2019 informed the Executive Engineer, Circle-20, GHMC, Seri Lingampally that he has verified the documents enclosed by the petitioner and observed that RDO, Chevella has issued patta certificate vide B/553/89, dated 25.07.1994 to one Ranga Swamy allotting plot No.532 in Sy. No.195, admeasuring 60 square yards. No.195, admeasuring 60 square yards. Upon verification of the approved lay out vide proceedings No.14464/MP2/HUDA/91, dated 27.04.1992, copy of Netaji Nagar colony, Nallagandla, it is observed that plot No.2 is abutting two roads i.e. near East & South sides, but the Engineering Section officials of circle-20 had laid CC road by covering plot No.532(P). Thus, the GHMC Officials have admitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued patta in favour of the petitioner's vendor's vendor. According to them, the said road was removed thereafter at the request of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of house. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2019 issued by the 4th respondent requesting the petitioner to resolve the issue with the Revenue people and local bodies is without any authority and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the said proceedings are set aside. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to shift the transformer from the petitioner's plot bearing No. 532 of Netaji Nagar Colony, Nallagnadla Village, Sheri Lingampally Mandal, R.R. District, as per the sanction proceedings dated 05.02.2019. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.