THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28294 of 2011 Dated 19th October, 2011 Between: Mantri Mohan Rao …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Municipality Nirmal, Adilabad District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Rama Bhoopal Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Pavan Kumar Aditya Malladi For Mrs.Shanthi Neelam Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the petitioner’s representations, dated 15.07.2011 and 18.07.2011, and not stopping respondent No.5 from raising constructions over plot admeasuring 1777.77 sq.yards bearing municipal No.5-10-17/2B, NH-7, Budhawarpet, Nirmal, Adilabad District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.Rama Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to the property referred to above from late Mantri Venkatesham @ Mantri Venkatadri. He alleged that respondent No.5 has misrepresented to respondent No.4 that he succeeded to the original assignee and has obtained an assignment deed in respect of the above property and approached respondent No.1 for grant of building permission. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 without proper verification has granted building permission, on the strength of which, respondent No.5 is raising construction. The petitioner further pleaded that as he is the real successor to the original assignee, he made representations to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate action for cancelling the assignment deed and the building permission. In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioner relates to title to the property and adjudication of various allegations against respondent No.5. Neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 is equipped with the machinery to adjudicate such disputes. The petitioner can only avail the common law remedy of a civil suit for declaration of his right over the property and for proving the fraud allegedly committed by respondent No.5. Therefore, in my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dispose of the petitioner’s representations. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to file a suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34934 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th October, 2011 VGB