THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31525 of 2010 DT.15.12.2010 Between: M/s.Sai Gokul Estates … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Distinct Panchayat Officer, C/o and O/o.Collectrate, Lakadi-ka-pool, R.R.District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Krishna Mohan Sikharam Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the proposed action of respondent No.2 in seeking to sanction layout in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 11, without collecting fees as prescribed under the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as illegal. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that there is a dispute between it and respondent Nos.4 to 11 leading to filing of O.S.No.2056 of 2010 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District Courts at L.B.Nagar, for perpetual injunction restraining respondent Nos.4 to 11 from alienating lands in favour of third parties, that the said Court has granted ad interim injunction till 16.12.2010 and that on receipt of the Court order, the petitioner made an application to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request not to permit formation of layout for their proposed venture. As respondent No.2 is stated to have refused to receive the petitioner’s application, it has filed the present writ petition claiming relief as noted above. In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived because the disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.4 to 11 on the other, are subject matter of O.S.No.2056 of 2010. Therefore, instead of splitting the causes of action and availing different remedies, the petitioner ought to have claimed comprehensive reliefs in the pending civil suit even in respect of sanctioning of layout by respondent No.2. The filing of the present writ petition promotes multiplicity of proceedings, which cannot be permitted. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in the pending suit. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40110 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 15.12.2010 VGB