THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.7733 of 2010 Dated 02nd August, 2011 Between: Lokireddy Venkata Reddy …Petitioner And The Ongole Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Ongole Prakasam District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Sitaram Chaparla The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The dispute pertains to a passage of 15’ width, which is marked as MNOP in the sketch filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. At the outset, it requires to be noted that Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has not disputed the correctness of the sketch. But, the dispute lies between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.3 on the other regarding usage of the said passage. When respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.2, he has issued the impugned notice, dated 30.03.2010, whereby he has directed the petitioner to remove the constructions existing in R.S.Nos.243 and 250 of Ongole Rural within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It is the case of the petitioner that the structure raised by him and being used as toilet as shown in the sketch does not fall within the 15’ wide passage marked as MNOP. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that so long as the petitioner allows his client to use the passage marked as MNOP, his client cannot have any grievance. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to dismantle the existing structures raised by the petitioner so long as they are not found to be in existence in the 15’ passage as mentioned in the sketch filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is correlated with the boundaries in the sale deed, dated 22.09.1969, executed by the petitioner and three others in favour of respondent No.3. In the event any further dispute arises between the parties, either party is given liberty to approach the competent civil Court either in the pending suits or by way of fresh suits. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9946 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.3451 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd August, 2011 VGB