IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15573 of 2008 Between: B. Lingaiah … Petitioner And Armoor Municipality, rep., by its Commissioner Armoor, Nizamabad District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Mrs. Shanti Neelam Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri Y. Srinivas Murthy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15573 of 2008 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s constitutional rights over the property admeasuring 244.41 square yards in Sy.No.415 of Mahalaxmi Colony, Armoor, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 not to interfere with his right to enjoy the said property. At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the suit filed by respondent No.3 for declaration of title and injunction against the petitioner in respect of the property in question is pending. In his counter affidavit, the Commissioner of respondent No.1 Municipality stated that the petitioner was earlier given permission for raising a compound wall in pursuance of a direction given by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Armoor in I.A.No.745 of 2006 in O.S.No.235 of 2004, that questioning the said direction respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed Civil Revision Petition No.5718 of 2008 in this Court in which an order of interim suspension was granted and that in pursuance of the said interim suspension, petitioner’s application for construction of compound wall was rejected. It is further stated that subsequently the Civil Revision Petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed by this Court by order, dated 19.06.2007, following which the petitioner was given permission for construction of compound wall. It is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that since permission was already granted to the petitioner, the question of interference with his possession of the land does not arise and that there is neither any intention nor attempt to interfere with the petitioner’s right over the property in question. In the light of the above categorical assertion made by respondent No.1, which is placed on record, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to work out their rights in the pending civil suit. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.20183 of 2008 and WVMP.No.2605 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.08.2011 ES