THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26324 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner states that his family owns a plot of 1200 sq.yards in Ongole town, abutting National Highway No.5, and an Automobile Showroom is being run in it, since 1986. According to him, a dead-end lane exists on the rear side of the plot, and it was being used for exit of the serviced vehicles. It is stated that the 3rd respondent constructed a multi-storied complex, by name, Soumya Apartments, without leaving any parking place, and in deviation of the sanctioned plan. On coming to know that the 3rd respondent is taking steps to install an idol at the dead-end lane, he submitted a representation to the respondents 1 and 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, no steps were taken on his representation. The writ petition is mainly contested by the 3rd respondent. In their counter-affidavit, they have stated that the petitioner does not have any right over the 25 feet lane, with dead-end. It is also stated that O.S.No.966 of 2007 was filed in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the petitioner, for the relief of perpetual injunction, and that an order of temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.3041 of 2007. The suit was said to be in relation to the attempt made by the petitioner for removal of a statue of Lord Anjaneya, installed at the dead-end corner of the road. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned counsel for respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly about the alleged attempts on the part of the 3rd respondent to install an idol. The record discloses that, the idol has since been installed. The 3rd respondent has already filed a suit in a Civil Court, duly impleading the petitioner. The various questions raised by the petitioner, be it, as to his right to use the dead-end lane, or the right of the 3rd respondent, to install an idol; can be effectively decided in the suit, on the basis of the evidence, that may be adduced by the parties. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the suit, which is already pending, or by instituting an independent suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-03-2011. KO