IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18031 of 2008 Between: Rasool Bee W/o.Wali Mohammad R/o.H.No.1-1-97, Shashaha Mahal Karimnagar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Karimnagar 2 Sandeboina Yadaiah S/o.Durgaiah R/o.H.No.1-1-12, Shashaha Mahal,Karimnagar .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent pursuant to the complaint dated 27.5.2008 submitted by the petitioner as being illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to remove unauthorized structures raised by the 2nd respondent in land admeasuring 38 gts in Sy.No.535 of Daddilammakunta, Karimnagar. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by Rasool Bee assailing the inaction of the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation-1st respondent on the complaint submitted by her on 27.05.2008. The petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of 38 guntas of land comprising Sy.No.535 situated at Daddilammakunta, Karimnagar. She purchased the said land under a simple sale deed dated 14.4.1962 from one Koduri Buchaiah. She claims to be in possession of the property through her agents M/s.Nyalam Anjaiah and others under an agreement of sale cum GPA with possession. According to her, she acquired title to the property under validation certificate issued under sub-section (2) of Section 50-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The 2nd respondent filed a suit being O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. She also moved I.A.No.366 of 2005 seeking temporary injunction. The temporary injunction application filed by the 2nd respondent ended in dismissal on 6.7.2007. The 2nd respondent allegedly started interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land and attempted to raise illegal constructions over it. She presented a complaint on 27.5.2008 to the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation-1st respondent resisting grant of building permission to the 2nd respondent. There being no action on her complaint, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material papers placed on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent is contemplating to put up constructions over the land of 38 guntas comprising Sy.No.535 without obtaining any permission from the 1st respondent- Municipality and therefore, necessary direction is required to the 1st respondent Municipality to take necessary action against the second respondent. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A.366 of 2006 in O.S.No.63 of 2006. There is a serious title dispute between the parties with regard to the extent of 38 guntas comprising Sy.No.535 of Daddilammakunta, Karimnagar. Indeed both the parties produced number of documents before the Civil Court to establish their respective rights over the land in dispute. The Civil Court refused to grant interim injunction in favour of the 2nd respondent herein on the ground that the 2nd respondent entered into a sale cum power of attorney on 30.12.2005. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraph 18 of the order passed in I.A.No.366 of 2005 in O.S.No.63 of 2006 and it is thus: “I have gone through the documents filed by the petitioner and respondent No.1 very carefully. From these documents it very much clear that there is a triangular fight between three parties in respect of the suit property. Ex.B3 clearly shows that the petitioner sold away 0-33 guntas, out of 0-38 guntas in Sy.No.535 to one Shaik Gulam Mohd. Hussain on 30-12-2005 under an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. It appears that after the said sale under Ex.B3, the petitioner has laid this suit on 23.3.2005 basing on the revenue records issued by the revenue officials. Since there is serious dispute involved in respect of the suit property between three parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. I do not find any merits in this petition. The petitioner miserably failed to make out the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss that he would sustain if injunction is not granted. Therefore, I hold this point accordingly. “ If the complaint of the petitioner is that 2nd respondent is attempting to put up construction in the premises owned by her, the proper course to her is to approach the civil Court for necessary relief. There is no public element involved in the writ petition. The dispute involved in this writ petition is purely a private dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is wholly misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. __________ 20-08-2008 rkk