IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20440 of 2011 BETWEEN Varagandham Indira. ... PETITIONER AND The Chief Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Secunderabad and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A.V. SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. O.MANOHAR REDDY MR. Y. SUDHAKAR The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner, who claims a share in the land admeasuring Ac.2.03 guntas in Sy.No.90/a situated at Doolaplly village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, has already filed a suit for partition being O.S.No.1042 of 2008 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. A copy of the plaint in the said suit is filed and schedule E property therein is the property concerned in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner claims that one B. Mallesh (shown as defendant No.2 in the said suit) is the brother of the petitioner and that during his lifetime he had given the property, which is subject matter of this writ petitioner, to the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for construction of petrol filling station and the respondents 1 and 2 – BPCL – are constructing the petrol filling station on the said land. Petitioner states that the said Mallesh, who according to the petitioner is co-sharer with the petitioner over the said property, died on 21.09.2010 pending the suit and that his wife also died on 27.11.2010. It is alleged that the said Mallesh died issueless and the third respondent claiming to be his wife is allowing the respondents 1 and 2 to construct the petrol filling station so as to get the allotment in her name. The status of the third respondent, as wife of said Mallesh, is seriously disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner states that he made a representation dated 07.06.2011 to respondents 1 and 2 to stop the construction of petrol filling station in view of pendency of the partition suit and alleging that no orders are passed the said representation, the present writ petition is filed. 3. This Court issued notice before admission on 20.07.2011 and in response thereto, Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel, appears for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent asserting that the construction of the petrol filling station commenced during the lifetime of said Mallesh and is almost completed by now. 4. Irrespective of the stage of construction of the petrol filling station, I am unable to see any legal right for the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. So far as petitioner is concerned, he is a complete stranger to respondents 1 and 2 and it is not obligatory for respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of his representation dated 07.06.2011. Even otherwise, the petitioner has filed a suit for partition claiming a share in the plaint schedule properties including the property involved herein. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to any of the suit schedule properties and constructions thereon it is open for the petitioner to approach the Court hearing the said partition suit and seek appropriate relief as permissible under law. The present writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 2, 2011 DSK