HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.11821 of 2009 Dated: 14-09-2010 Between: Hajera Begum …Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.No.11821 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner claiming to be a resident of Yakutpura, Hyderabad filed this writ petition in the form of public interest complaining construction of an electrical sub-station over the graveyard, situated at Yasrab Nagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad in a residential area without obtaining permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and without following the fire and other safety norms, which is detrimental to the residents of the locality. The first respondent-Corporation filed a counter affidavit stating that according to the Town Survey Land Record, the land in T.S.No.1 is classified as Government vested municipal nala and T.S.No.2 is a graveyard. Since it is a Government land, illegal structures raised on the land were demolished by the revenue officials as per the directions of the District Collector, Hyderabad on 11.5.2005 and the land was protected with barbed wire. The total extent of 324 sq.yds. of land forming part of T.S.Nos.1 and 2, Block-F, Ward No.211, Talab Chanchelam Village of Charminar Mandal was handed over to Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), M.P.2, APCPDCL, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein on 27.2.2006 under panchanama as per the directions of the District Collector, Hyderabad, vide proceedings in Lr.No.LP1/4327/2005, dated 25.2.2006 and 6.3.2006 for erection of electrical sub-station for public purpose. Accordingly, electrical sub- station was erected on the said land provided by the Government, which is classified as Government vested municipal nala and that there is no provision under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act requiring prior permission of the first respondent-Corporation for erection of sub-station, and therefore, the second respondent has not obtained any permission from the first respondent-Corporation. Since the District Collector, Hyderabad directed to handover the site for the purpose of erection of sub-station, the land was handed over to the second respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that prior to filing of the present writ petition, one Syeed Bin Ahmed, resident of Sasub Nagar, Yakatpura, Hyderabad filed W.P.No.11464 of 2009 on identical grounds and that the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 12.6.2009. After dismissal of the said writ petition, certain persons filed O.S.Nos.865 of 2005, 86 of 2007 and 870 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming title over the property and the same are pending adjudication. One Shahzadi Begum filed W.P.No.563 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed. Further, a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2007 was filed on the file of Wakf Tribunal to declare the property as wakf on the ground that the graveyard is in existence and the same is a wakf property by user and another suit in O.S.No.71 of 2008 was filed and the same were dismissed for non-prosecution by the Wakf Tribunal. It is stated that the sub-station was already constructed and was also charged on 12.6.2009 i.e. prior to filing of the writ petition, by spending an amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/- and now it is functioning. From the above facts, it is clear that the land in question is not classified as a graveyard as alleged by the petitioner, wherein a sub- station has been erected. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the petitioner that the land is a graveyard, that due to the construction of sub-station, there would be obstruction of nala and thereby in the rainy season, water will flow into the colony etc., are all matters which can be decided in properly framed civil suit to remove the nuisance, if any, on adducing the evidence by the persons aggrieved. In view of the same, all the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the present writ petition. Hence the present writ petition in the form of public interest litigation cannot be entertained. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.