THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 19256 of 2009 Dated: 3-11-2009 Between: V.Anjaneyulu …Petitioner and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Coprporation, rep. By its Deputy Commissioner, Alwal Circle, Alwal, Secunderabad and others …Respondents Oral order: (Per GR, J) The 3rd respondent in writ petition No. 7220 of 2009 has filed this writ petition alleging unauthorised and unlawful conduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in demolishing the compound wall in the premises of the petitioner in Plot No. 47 in Sy.No. 46/A of Kowkur Village, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner claims to have purchased land in Plot No.47, Sy.No.46/A, for valuable consideration from one Smt Jangala Lakshmi under a registered sale deed dated 18-1-2006 and claims to have constructed a compound wall thereon including a house bearing No. 4-2-56/1. It is asserted that the land in question in Sy.No.46/A is patta land; the Housing Society had purchased lands in Sy.Nos. 39, 40, 23 and 46/A from the land owners, made a lay out; and alloted the plots to its members. Smt Jangala Lakshmi is claimed to have purchased plot No. 47 in Sy.No.46/A from one Krishna Murthy of Nalgonda District. The petitioner purchased this plot from Jangala Lakshmi. As respondents 3 and 4 were trying to demolish the petitioner’s compound wall alleging encroachment of the burial ground, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 2133 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri for perpetual injunction along with I.A.No. 3496 of 2007 for temporary injunction. The suit and the interlocutory application therein are stated to be pending. The petitioner asserts that the burial ground is not in Sy.No.46/A. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the burial ground is in Sy.No.41, but the official respondents, under the assumption that the burial ground is in the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.46/A demolished his compound wall and have constructed another compound wall illegally. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.2 however assert that the burial ground is in Sy.No.41 and the 1st respondent has constructed the compound for the burial ground in Sy.No.41 and that the petitioner has no right or entitlement to the land in Sy.No.41 but had encroached into the burial ground. This encroachment was removed and possession of the burial ground resumed. From the rival contentions, it is apparent that there exists a boundary dispute and a dispute as to the entitlement of the property. The competing claims clearly involve factual disputes. Whether the petitioner’s property is in Sy.No.46/A; whether he encroached into the burial ground; or whether the burial ground is in Sy.No.41 or Sy.No.46- A are disputed questions of fact which are appropriately resolved by the civil court of competent jurisdiction and not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. _____________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 3rd November, 2009. GRR