THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 33804 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not demarcating plot Nos.21 to 30 (i.e. those plots are in one bit) in terms of the HUDA approved layout vide permit No.3790/MP2/HUDA/96, dated 03-10-1996, situated in Sy. Nos.1, 3, 41/2 part, 60, 67 and 68 of Khanampet village and Survey No.6 of Izzath Nagar village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with reference to the respective registered documents, duly giving notices to the said plot owners and till such demarcation to stop the constructions being carried out by the 5th respondent, pursuant to the representation, dated 01-10-2011, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner and one N.Sastyanrayana are the owners of plot No.23, admeasuring 510 square yards situated in Silpa Builders Layout, which was approved by HUDA vide permit No. No.3790/MP2/HUDA/96, dated 03-10-1996, situated in Sy. Nos.1, 3, 41/2 part, 60, 67 and 68 of Khanampet village and Survey No.6 of Izzath Nagar village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Further, they have constructed a compound wall to their plot after obtaining necessary permission from the respondent authorities. While so, the 5th respondent purchased the plot Nos.21, 22, 26 and 27 and while developing the said plots, it has demolished their eastern side compound wall i.e. between plot Nos.22 and 23 and encroached about 0.52 square yards into their land in their absence. When questioned, the 5th respondent informed that they have proceeded with according to the measurements demarcated by them. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent. In spite of their representation, the respondents are not taking any action. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 5th respondent, who is a developer of the plots adjacent to their plot, tried to encroach the plots Nos.21 to 30 without there being valid title and interest and hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the sale deed, the extent of said plots, boundaries therein and the approved lay out would disclose the extent of site with measurements, and therefore, if any third party is interfering with the property of the petitioner, the remedy is otherwise. 6. As seen from the approved plan, the 5th respondent claims to be the purchaser of the property in plot Nos21, 22, 26 and 27. In respect of plot numbers 21 and 22, if there is any dispute with regard to the extent of land, then certainly the 4th respondent has to demarcate the land. The approved plan shows that the demarcation of such boundaries are clearly mentioned. Similarly the permit number is also mentioned in the approved lay out plan. The sale deed also discloses about the boundaries and extent of the land. Since it is a case that the third parties, who are said to be the purchasers of adjacent plots to the plot in question, are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, the remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere. Hence, there are no grounds to admit the writ petition. 7. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail remedies available to him under law, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ 22nd December 2011 JUSTICE K.C.BHANU kvr