IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16322 of 2008 Between: Mohammed Naseem Jaha Begum D/o. Mohd. Khasim, Shafeed, R/o. 18-12-19/II/12, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner , Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Abdul Karim S/o. Not known Chandrayanagutta, Zone, Hyderabad, R/o. 14-235, Near Badi Mazdid, Shaheemnagar, Hyderabad. 3 Mohd. Sardar Ali S/o SK Chand 14-235, Near Badi Maxdid, Vaden Omer X Road, Shameem Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 Station House Officer, Pahadishareef PS, Hyderabad(Cyberabad) .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 is illegal, unlawful and violative of Principles of natural jutice and consequently direct the respondent to take action against the respondent No.2 for illegal, encroachment of the respondent No.2 into petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and evict him from petitioners property and to pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.METTU.GOVARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 16322 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Mohd. Naseem Jaha Begum with a prayer to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the action of Abdul Karim-Respondent NO.2 in demolishing the fencing wall as illegal, unlawful and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 4 to take action against the 2nd Respondent for his illegal encroachment over the plot bearing NO. 66/2 situated in Survey No. 159 to an extent of 450.55 square yards at Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 demolished the compound wall and encroached a portion of the site owned by her. For better appreciation I may refer paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit and it is thus. “4. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 herein purchased the adjacent land from the same vendor from whom I am have purchased the property. The document is registered by the same vendor My Registered sale deed shows the boundaries south: 82.6 feet and 30 feet road the Northern side covers 51 feet and western side 60 feet width and eastern side is covers is 60-0 feet total extent of land covers 450.55 square yards is equallent to 376.71 square meters. The total extent of land covers towards my land and neighbours land which the respondent No.2 herein is 145 feets means after removing any extent of land i.e. ( ie. 82.6 feet) the respondents NO.2 land covers remaining 62 feet. 5. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is having 62 feet length towards the south and northern side and is having 60 feet wideth towards the east and western side, the total extent of the land covers 416 square yards that I have constructed the fencing well with stones to the boundaries of me and respondent No.2. Either the respondent No.2 or his agents is not raised any objections from the date of my registration and my possession. While matter stood thus, the respondent No.2 is using his influence as his Reserve Constable at CRPF and using his police influence he has demolished my fencing wall which is constructed with stone bricks, and he has started raising the pillars with Iron roads. I and my husband and other neighbours objected him for his illegal encroachment into my land by demolishing the fencing walls”. 4. His grievance is against Respondents No.2 and 3 who are private parties. Such is the case, she has to work out her remedy against respondents no.2 and 3 by approaching the civil Court. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 29th July, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 16322 OF 2008 29th July, 2008.