IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14378 of 2008 Between: Mohd Mateen hussain S/o Mohd Mustafa Hussain R/o 11-2-1050, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion, rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief City Planner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Town Planner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 Mohd. Ibrahim Shareef S/o Mohd. Shareef rep by his GPA Holder, Ismail Shareef Mohd. Shareef aged about 56 years Occ: Business, R/o 11-4-33, Bazarghat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaringthe inaction of the Respondent No.1 to 3 in taking action against the Respondnet No4's illegal Construction at oewnuawa vwEUBF nYBUXUOk Bi, 11-4-564 to 567, Bazarghat, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and further direct Respondents 1 to 3 to immediately take action against the illegal construction being made by the Respondent No.4 in the said premises and further direct Respondents No. 1 to 3 not to regularise the illegal construction made over the said property and pass any such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ASHFAQ AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14378 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Mohd. Mateen Hussain assailing the in action of the respondents 1 to 3 on the complaint made by him with regard to the illegal constructions made by Mohd.Ibrahim Shareef-4th respondent over the premises bearing Municipal No.11-4-564 to 567, situated at Bazarghat, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner claims to be one of the owners of the premises bearing Municipal No. 11-4-562 and 563, situated at Bazarghat, Hyderabad. The 4th respondent allegedly encroached 21.3 square yards of land owned by the petitioner and put up constructions. The petitioner made representation before respondents 1 to 3 stating that 4th respondent having secured building permission for residential house proceeding with the construction of commercial complex. He also stated in the representation that the 4th respondent encroached 21.3 square yards of his land in the process of constructing a commercial complex. It appears 4th respondent ﬁled a suit against the father of the petitioner and after the death of the father of the petitioner, he came to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the said suit. The father of the petitioner appears to have ﬁled suit against the 4th respondent with regard to the encroached portion. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 7-3-1978. 4th Respondent received notice and entered appearance through counsel. A counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the 4th respondent 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is with regard to the construction made by the 4th respondent in deviation to the sanctioned plan and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the complaint made by him and to pass appropriate orders. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the dispute between the parties already landed in civil Court and therefore, there is no public law element involved in the writ petition. 7. A fact remains that two suits came to be ﬁled by the parties, one filed by the 4th respondent and another ﬁled by the father of the petitioner. The Civil Court seized of the matter wherein the rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated on full ﬂedged trial. The dispute between the parties appears to be a private dispute and there is no public element involved in this matter. Therefore, invoking jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 15th September, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14378 OF 2008 15th September, 2008.