THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2599 of 2008 Date: 08.02.2008 Between: Smt.G.Vani … Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by Commissioner & Special Officer, Hyderabad. And others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Sudheer Kumar Counsel for respondents: Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, SC HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2599 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in digging foundation pits for the purpose of constructing a compound wall across the plot of the petitioner, i.e., plot bearing No.176 (Old A-8) situated at Air Force Officers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Vayupuri, Secundrabad as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M.Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of respondent No.4, the officials of respondent No.1 have started digging foundation pits around the plot of the petitioner for raising a compound wall on the erroneous premise that the said site is a vacant site and not belonging to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that when respondent No.4 sought to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, she filed O.S.No.1339 of 2007 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy and persuaded the said Court to grant interim injunction against respondent No.4, and that to overcome the said order of injunction respondent No.4 prevailed upon respondent No.1 to raise a compound wall in order to deprive the petitioner of the plot which legitimately belongs to her. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner made a representation dated 7.2.2008 to respondents 1 to 3 and even without considering the same, they hurriedly started digging the pits for laying compound wall. The question whether the vacant site over which the respondents 1 to 3 are seeking to construct a compound wall belongs to the petitioner or not is required to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence. It is not possible for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to embark upon adjudication of such factual disputes. As the petitioner claimed to have made a representation to respondents 1 to 3, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the Commissioner and Special Officer of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad – Respondent No.1 to consider representation dated 7.2.2008 of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. If the order, to be passed by the said authority, is adverse to the interest of the petitioner she is left free to question the same before a competent civil court and seek appropriate relief. Till the disposal of the representation by respondent No.1, respondents 1 to 3 shall not proceed with further work on the disputed site. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:08.02.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o. mdaa