THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5866 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner states that himself and one Sri D.Papeswar Rao are the owners of a plot of 1500 square yards, which is part of Block No.11, survey No.2, Allipuram Ward, Visakhapatnam. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, the 1st respondent, accorded permission to the 2nd respondent to construct a building upon a site in the nearby locality. One Mr.Syed Ilyas filed W.P.No.29560 of 2010 before this Court, questioning the permission. The Court passed an interim order, on 26.11.2010, directing the 1st respondent to ensure that the construction is made by the 2nd respondent, if only the permission was renewed. Thereupon, the 1st respondent has undertaken a thorough verification of the matter and issued proceedings dated 21.02.2011, holding that the 2nd respondent is entitled to proceed with the construction according to the sanctioned plan. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is making construction by encroaching into his site. He urges that the construction is being made on a totally different site, than the one mentioned in the permission. He submitted a representation, dated 22.01.2011 to the 1st respondent and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri S.Rajan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who filed caveat. The permission accorded to the 2nd respondent was challenged in a writ petition, may be by a different person. In view of the interim orders passed therein, the 1st respondent has undertaken a thorough verification and found that the permission does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. It may be true that the petitioner did not have any opportunity to participate in the said proceedings and that his complaint is in a different context. The petitioner is of the view that any property owned by him was encroached by the 2nd respondent, he has to institute a suit before a competent Court of law and seek appropriate remedy. The dispute of the nature raised by the petitioner cannot be resolved in a writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a suit and work out his remedies. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.03.2011. GJ