THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22693 of 2011 Dated 23rd November, 2011 Between: Valarmadhi …Petitioner And The District Collector-cum-Executive Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Chittoor and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Prakash For Sri K.Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not transferring the funds allotted to the petitioner for construction of house under Indiramma Scheme Phase-II as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries for allotment of a house under the housing scheme of the Government called Indiramma Housing Scheme. She pleaded that only 20 bags of cement was supplied to her in the year 2008 and that in expectation of payment of the balance amount to which she is eligible, she has constructed basement and raised walls. When the balance payment has not been made, she approached respondent No.1 on 09.10.2010 by making a representation. But the amount has not been paid. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that as the petitioner is not a member of Women Self Help Group, she is eligible for sanction of a sum of Rs.31,250/- only and that as the petitioner has constructed house upto roof caste level without construction of toilet, she was paid a sum of Rs.28,000/-. The counter affidavit has given out the details of payments made progressively commencing from 05.12.2007 to 07.05.2009. It is further stated that the petitioner will be paid the balance amount of Rs.3,250/- on completion of the construction. A reply affidavit is filed, wherein the petitioner has denied receipt of any amount, except to the extent of 20 bags of cement. In my opinion, there is a serious dispute as to the factum of payment of amount to the petitioner. The petitioner is disputing her thumb impressions on the register maintained by the officials of respondent No.1. In the face of these disputes, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the writ petition on merits. If the petitioner has not received the amount as claimed by the respondents, she shall be free to avail the remedy of civil suit for recovery of the amount, which she is eligible to receive under the Indiramma Housing Scheme. Subject to the liberty given as above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27732 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd November, 2011 VGB