The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.7683 of 2011 Date: 3rd November, 2011 Between: Rudra Raju Venkata Narayana Raju ..... Petitioner and 1.The Municipal Corporation, Nellore, rep. by its Commissiner and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.CVR.Rudra Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.1: B.Hanumantha Rao, SC for Municipality Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.K.Naveen Kumar The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the site admeasuring 230 ankanams, equivalent to 1840 square yards bearing Patta No.103 in Survey No.426 of Kondayapalem Village, Municipal Corporation of Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.0-38 cents, out of total land admeasuring Ac.4-04 cents, in the aforesaid Survey number. When respondent No.2 sought to interfere with his possession of the above-mentioned land, the petitioner has filed OS.No.96 of 1992 in the Court of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, for permanent injunction, while respondent No.2 filed OS.No.114 of 1992 in the same Court for a similar relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that while his suit was decreed, the suit filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed and the first appeals, filed, against the said judgments, by respondent No.2 were also dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has been interfering with his possession of the above-mentioned property on the ground that the same forms part of the open space surrendered by respondent No.2 in connection with approval of lay out. Respondent No.1 has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that respondent No.2 has submitted a lay out proposal for an extent of Ac.8-39 cents in Survey Nos.411/B, 426 and 427/B of Kondayapalem Village, Nellore; that the said lay out was approved subject to the condition of respondent No.2 leaving Ac.2-51 cents, comprising 30% of site, for roads and Ac.0- 84 cents, constituting 10 % of site, as reserved open space and; that the land, which the petitioner claims, forms part of the said open space. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the land claimed by the petitioner is different from the land, which is made part of the sanctioned lay out. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings, I am of the opinion that while the petitioner’s title over the extent of Ac.0-38 cents is not disputed by any of the respondents, the only issue that requires adjudication is whether respondent No.1 has been trying to take possession of any part of 0-38 cents while purporting to assert its right over the 40% of the space left by respondent No.2 towards roads and open space in the three survey numbers referred to above. In my opinion, this dispute can be resolved only by a civil Court on analysis of the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of this issue, the Writ Petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the common law remedy of a civil suit before the competent civil Court. In order to protect the interests of the petitioner till such remedy is availed, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court on 23-03-2011, as extended by further orders, shall continue for a period of one month. As a sequel, WPMP.No.9549 of 2011 is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd November, 2011 LUR