THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19327 of 2008 Between: Abdul Azeez & others. …… Petitioners and Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Hyderabad & others ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19327 of 2008 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in permitting Respondents 3 and 4 to carry out the illegal and unauthorized constructions in the land belonging to the petitioners in Survey No. 99, admeasuring Ac.15.19 guntas situated at Hyderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein filed O.S. No. 927 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their representatives from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioners in the suit that they are the owners of the aforesaid land and that the defendants, who are the owners of the land covered by Survey No.1 of Sikanderguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are trying to set up a false claim over the suit schedule property. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.1011 of 2007 seeing interim relief and the same is pending consideration. It seems there are boundary disputes between the parties with regard to the lands covered by the aforesaid survey numbers. Here it is to be noted that pending the suit and the Application for interim relief, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant Writ Petition for the self same relief, without even disclosing the factum of pendency of the civil litigation. However, the limited grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that Respondents 1 and 2 are permitting Respondents 3 and 4 to raise constructions over the premises in question. That being the case, I am of the opinion that pending the suit as well as the Application for interim relief, the petitioners cannot file this Writ Petition seeking the very same relief. If the petitioners are so aggrieved by the action of the respondents, they are at liberty to seek appropriate directions in the suit itself by impleading the authorities concerned for allowing the unofficial respondents to raise constructions in contravention of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) 18th January 2010 ksld