HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26939 of 2011 Date: 27.09.2011 Between: Hadisul Begum ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, And two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.C.Yadav for Sri M.M.Firdos Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, for Sri N.Ranga Reddy, Standing Counsel for GVMC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to demolish the structure raised by respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have heard Sri P.C.Yadav, learned counsel representing Sri M.M.Firdos, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.1. The averments contained in the affidavit show that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner on one side and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have encroached into about 5 feet of her land and raised construction and that, though the same was brought to the notice of respondent No.1 through various representations, the last of which is stated to be 09.09.2011, no action is being taken thereon. In my opinion, the cause for filing the Writ Petition is the serious dispute over the property between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, which is the subject matter of various civil cases in which certain interim orders are also stated to be in force. Except stating that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have encroached a part of the petitioner’s land and raised construction, the petitioner has not disclosed as to how the construction raised by respondent Nos.2 and 3 can be termed as illegal. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to obtain building permission for raising construction or that, they are constructing the building in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Unless either of these two aspects exists, respondent No.1 cannot be directed to interfere with the construction already made by respondent Nos.2 and 3, merely because the petitioner has a grievance against them for allegedly encroaching into her property. The petitioner is entitled to seek redressal of her grievance either in the pending civil cases or by approaching the civil Court by initiating a fresh litigation. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33272 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th September, 2011 DR