HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.687 OF 2007 Between: I.Padmachary . . .Appellant AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and others . . .Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the appellant : Shri I.Padmachary appellant in person Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Shri R.Ramachandra Reddy 30th August, 2007 PER G.S.SINGHVI, CJ This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 14.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21051 of 2006 whereby he declined to entertain the appellant’s prayer for issue of direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to remove encroachment allegedly made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in and over his plot bearing No.9-1-128/A/9, Survey No.132, Prashant Nagar, Langer Houz, Hyderabad. We have heard the appellant, who appeared in person and Shri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and are convinced that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by declining to entertain the appellant’s prayer and gave him liberty to avail remedy of the civil Court. The question whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 or anyone else has encroached the appellant’s land and raised illegal construction is essentially a question of fact which can be decided by an appropriate adjudicative forum on the basis of the evidence to be produced by the parties and there is no extraordinary reason for this Court to entertain such prayer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is another reason for our disinclination to entertain the appellant’s prayer. In counter-affidavit, dated 16.12.2006 and additional affidavit, dated 08.04.2007 filed by Shri K.Narasinga Rao, Assistant City Planner, Circle-IV, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Now Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation), it has been unequivocally averred that the so-called encroachment made by respondent No.3 has been removed and there does not exist any encroachment. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to controvert the aforementioned assertion. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main appeal, WAMP No.1384 of 2007 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ 30th August, 2007 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J kvni