IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21219 of 2008 Between: P.Naga Rani D/o.P.Sudarshnam W/o.S.Raju R/o.H.No.1-37-801, Anna Nagar, Balmurai, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Kukatpally, R.R. District. 2 The Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District. 3 Sri.M.Narsimha Rao S/o.Late M.Veeraiah R/o.8-7-171/26 Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 4 Sri.M.Raju R/o.8-7-171/26 Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 5 Sri Jargh S/o.Jargh Abraham R/o. Plot No. 13, Rajareddy Colony, Bowenpally. 6 Sri. J.C. Reddy R/o. Plot No.14, Rajareddy Colony, 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more speciﬁcally of the respondent No.1 & 2 in interfering into petitioners peaceful position of the petition schedule property i.e., H.No.8-7-171/29/A on part of Plot No.29 in Sy.No.44 admeasuring 150 sq. yards situated at Old Bowenpally village, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District Hyderabad is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and against the principal of natural justice or to pass order/orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PILLI.NAGARAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21219 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by P. Naga Rani assailing the action of the respondents NO.1 and 2 in interfering with her possession in respect of property bearing H.No. 8-7- 171/29/A on part of Plot No. 29 in Survey No. 44 admeasuring 150 square yards situated at Old Bowenpally village, Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Maandal, Ranga Reddy District at the instance of respondents 3 to 6. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission Smt. Kalpana Ekbote learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, received notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. 3. Learned standing counsel, on instructions, reports that the 1st respondent is not interfering with the possession of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material papers placed on record. 5. The contents of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition indicate that the petitioner has a dispute with respondent No. 3 to 6 who are private parties. He has to seek remedy against respondents No.3 to 6 by approaching the proper civil Court. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 29th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21219 OF 2008 29th September, 2008.