IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 1966 of 2000 Between: Sri D. Krishna, S/o. Late Sri D. Augaiah, R/o.H.No.11-1-625/24, Chintabavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad, S.P. Road, Secunderabad. 3 Sri Dasari Krishna, S/o. Not known, R/o.H.No.11-1-778/3, Behind Sridevi Talkies, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction made on the PUBLIC ROAD which is to the western side of the writ petitioner's house bearing No.11-1-625/24, Chintabavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad admeasuring 30 Sq. yards bounded on North : Neighbour's house, South : Lane, East : Neighbours house, West : Public Road is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.M.VENKATESWARI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: SMT. KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for the Respondents No.3: MR. E. NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner submits that he is the owner of the premises bearing No.11- 1-625/24, Chintabavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.08.1999 admeasuring 30 sq. yards consisting of two rooms bounded on North by neighbour’s house; South by lane, East by neighbour’s house and West by public road having purchased the same from the vendor one A. Susheela W/o. A. Ranakesh. He further submits that one G. Madanaiah was originally allotted a plot of land admeasuring 30 sq. yards bearing Plot No.24 within the specific boundaries North – Plot No.12, South – 13 feet Road, West – 20 feet road and East – Plot No.23 and the said Madanaiah sold the said property to Susheela but not to the petitioner. While so, the third respondent unauthorizedly dug pits in front of his property on the Western side of which there is 20 feet road, as per the original patta. Therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to the first respondent on 25.10.1999 and 26.10.1999 but no action was taken and thereafter, he made two more complaints on 15.11.1999 and 17.11.1999 but no action has been taken. Therefore, he seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to demolish the unauthorized constructions made by the third respondent on the public road. 3. Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 stating that the Corporation is not aware about the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the said house and the land in Sy.No.822/1 to 8 of Chintabavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad was acquired by the respondent corporation. The corporation is the owner of the acquired land and some hut dwellers illegally occupied the said land and for the upliftment of the hut dwellers house site pattas have been issued in 1993 each an extent of 30 sq. yards and the petitioner might have purchased one of the house sites from one of the original allottees but the corporation is not aware of the said fact. 4. It is further stated that towards western side of the petitioner’s house only 2 feet wide service land is in existence, whereas it is shown as 20 feet wide road. The petitioner’s house is having access to the 13 feet wide road towards southern side which gets access to the Church main road to the Eastern side and leads to Chilkalguda main road. Insofar as the alleged encroachment by the third respondent is concerned, it is stated that towards the western side only two feet wide service land is in existence adjacent to which a 10 feet wide nala is in existence. Thereafter, there is 40 feet wide road abutting to the Sridevi Theatre. It is further stated that on the strength of the wrong dimensions shown in the sale deed the petitioner himself is trying to grab the land of another patta holder – Ramulamma and started harassing Ramulamma. An old hut is in existence with six RCC pillars in the land in question, which belongs to Ramulamma. 5. Ramulamma is not a party to the writ petition. It is stated that the third has unauthorizedly encroached the western side of the petitioner’s house. Counter is silent about the house situated on the western side, which belongs to the third respondent, but it is stated that the western side house belongs to Ramulamma. Petitioner has not filed any reply to the counter filed in February 2000 wherein it is stated that the house situated on the western side belongs to Ramulamma but not of the third respondent. However, it is not known whether the municipal number given to the petitioner is in respect of the land assigned to Madanaiah i.e. Plot No.24 or not. No doubt, in the assignment patta granted in favour Madanaiah, western side boundary is shown as 20 feet road. A perusal of the patta certificate goes to show that the alienee is not entitled to alienate the said land without permission of the Director of Urban Community Development Department, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is stated that no such permission is obtained. 6. I am of the opinion that unless the regular trial is conducted by adducing oral and documentary evidence establishing the correctness or otherwise of the boundaries and as to whether the petitioner’s house is related to the original assignee, who alienated the said land in favour of Susheela wherein the width of the western road is not mentioned except stating that on the south there is a lane and on the western side there is a road, the controversy cannot be resolved in this writ petition. However, all these disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March 12, 2008 DSK