IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10259 of 2009 Between: Syed Dilawar Mehdi S/o. Late Syed Mahmood R/o. 1-3-145/B, Khan Mohalla, Zaheerabad, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Wakf Board Reptd. by its C.E.O. Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer P.S. Zaheerabad Medak District. 3 The Zaheerabad Municipality Reptd. by its Commissioner Zaheerabad, Medak District. 4 Syed Mahmood S/o. Late Syed Yakub Zaheerabad, Medak District. 5 Syed Afzal Mehdi S/o. Syed Mahmood R/o. 1-3-171, Zaheerabad, Medak District. .....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 to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in collusion with the respondents 4 and 5 for demolishing part of the house bearing No. 1-3-145/B (new), Khan Mohalla, Zaheerabad, Medak District without issuing notice is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and also in violation of A.P. Municipality Act 1965 and also in violation of principles of natural justice and Art. 14 and 21 of the Constituion of India. Consequently to restrain the respondents 4 and 5 from demolishing the said dwelling house. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 10259 of 2009 16-07-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is misconceived and is also vague. It is pleaded that the premises bearing No. 1-3-145/B (new), Old No. 3-3-95 forming part of Daira-e-Mehdaviya, Khan Mohalla, Zaheerabad, Medak District, is a wakf property in respect of which the 4th respondent executed a rental deed in favour of the petitioner’s father on 05-06-1992. The father of the petitioner passed away in 2008. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir and to be continuing as tenant of the premises, paying the rents to the Mutwalli, apart from paying electricity, water and property tax. In paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is breezily pleaded that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being very influential, the official respondents are colluding with them and that ‘the respondents” partly demolished the petitioner’s house on 13-05-2009. When respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were requested by the petitioner to take action against the unofficial respondents, they failed to do so. The petitioner apprehends threat of further aggression and demolition by the respondents. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner’s representation dated 13-05-2009 was not being considered and the official respondents “are still actively supporting the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and are violating the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1965 and Rules and the representation may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.” The pleadings either taken in isolation or in conjunction do not plead any overt or specific conduct on the part of the official respondents which may be characterized as unlawful conduct. In the absence of specific allegations, of the unlawful conduct by the official respondents, the substantive grievance of the petitioner appears to be unlawful interference by the non-official respondents with the petitioner’s property, a grievance which cannot be presented under Article 226 of the Constitution as it has no public law element warranting adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in the private law domain. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 16-07-2009 Pvks