IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 3656 of 2008 Between: Md. Ranjan Ali @ Baba Bai, S/o. Miskin, Muslim, R/o. 12-1-34, Kanithi Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State, represented by its Chief Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Town Planning Officer, The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 4 Smt. Kona (Nimmakayala) Venkata Rajeswari, W/o. N.S.N. Swamy, Hindu, R/o. D.No.50-83-35/3, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action on petitioner's representations as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and direct the Respondent to conduct enquiry into the matter and affect demolition of the unauthorized constructions in Plot No.219 admeasuring 500 Sq.Yds in T.S.No.179, in S.No.83 of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} O R D E R: There appear to be competing claims between the petitioner and the 4th respondent with regard to property in an extent of 500 square yards in Plot No.219, T.S.No.179 in S.No.83 of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Alleging unauthorized interference with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the said property and seeking injunctive relief, the petitioner filed O.S.No.33 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka and thereat he filed I.A.No.65 of 2005 for interim injunction. It is alleged that after receiving notice in the Interlocutory Application, the 4th respondent illegally put up a small shed in the schedule property for which the 2nd respondent-Municipal Corporation also gave a Door Number. On the basis of this development, the 4th respondent is trying to establish her possession in the schedule property to defeat the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the suit, is the grievance urged. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the 4th respondent. As is apparent from the pleadings, there are disputes with regard to either the ownership or the title or both between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of which the suit has been filed by the petitioner. Mere issue of a Door Number to the shed put up by the 4th respondent, it is well established, does not per se confer title to a property. In the circumstances, as the petitioner has already filed a suit seeking more comprehensive relief thereat and has also impleaded the 2nd respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is misconceived. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies either in the pending suit or in any appropriate proceedings before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. ______________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 22nd February, 2008 bcj