HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21898 of 2006 Date: February 14, 2011 Between: K. Ramana Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and anothers. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21898 of 2006 ORDER: The writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the second respondent in trying to demolish the rooms constructed by the petitioner allegedly on his own site, as illegal. 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased 243 square yards of site situated in Sy.No.582/10, Ward No.41 beside the Indian Oil Pump, Kandukur Municipality, Kandukur under a registered sale deed No.266, dated 28.02.1991 and constructed Tin sheds in the front portion of the said site. The petitioner asserts that the said construction has been made on his private land. 3. The second respondent issued provisional notice on 24.8.2006 under Section 228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act calling upon to explain why the aforesaid construction shall not be removed on the ground that such constructions were made without obtaining any permission from the municipality. The petitioner failed to submit explanation to the said notice as such a final Notice dated 31.8.2006 was served on the petitioner calling upon him to remove the construction within seven days, failing which the construction would be removed by the staff. 4. Apprehending that the construction would be demolished, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. The petitioner asserts that the aforesaid land said to have been purchased by him is a private land. The second respondent opposed the same and asserts that the petitioner has occupied the road margin belonging to the R & B Department and the shops were constructed unauthorizedly without obtaining permission from the municipality. Whether the land is a private land and it was lawful for the petitioner to make any constructions and whether the assertion of the second respondent that the land belongs to the R & B Department are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into this writ petition. There is, however, no denial that the petitioner has made the construction without obtaining any permission of the municipality. Evidently, the petitioner has resorted to make illegal construction. He has not even challenged the final notice. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to invoke such legal remedy available to him under law to establish his title over the aforesaid site. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: February 14, 2011. BSB