IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24897 of 2008 Between: Smt. M.Suvarna W/o. Venkatesh Yadav R/o. 118-7-757 & 758, Gowlipura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep by its Commissioner, Municipal Complex, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. City Planner, G.H.M.C., Charminar (Circle No. 1), Hyderabad. 3 Sri Swaroop Raj S/o. M.Balojee R/o. H.No. 18-7-755, Gowlipura, 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 Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the anture of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents 1 and 2 is not issuing notices under Sec.452(2) and also 636 of H.M.C. to remove the unauthorized construction of the respondent No.3 house bearing No. 18-7-757/A, situated at Gowlipura, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and also in violation of H.M.C. Act and Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the House bearing No.18-7-757 & 758, at Gowlipura, Hyderabad. While so, the 3rd respondent, without obtaining permission from respondents 1 and 2, started constructing a wall very close to the petitioner’s compound wall without leaving set back of 3 feet land, and thereby causing lot of inconvenience to the members of her family and also to her tenant. Then, the petitioner made a representation, dated 25.1.2008 to the 2nd respondent-Assistant City Planner requesting him to direct the 3rd respondent to remove the unauthorized construction. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of her representation, respondents 1 and 2 have neither taken any action against the 3rd respondent for removal of the illegal construction of the wall nor issued any notice to the 3rd respondent to follow the procedure contemplated under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. Challenging the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein he stated that the petitioner already filed O.S.No.285 of 2008 along with an application in I.A.No.100 of 2008 seeking temporary injunction against the 3rd respondent in respect of the property in question and VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by an order dated 15.4.2008, dismissed the application holding that prima facie, the petitioner has not established that the construction made by the 3rd respondent is illegal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. From the averments made in the counter affidavit and a perusal of the material placed before the Court, it is evident that the petitioner had already filed the suit claiming the very same relief which she is claiming in this writ petition, and in fact, the application filed by her for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit, is dismissed, and the suit is still pending. When the civil proceedings for the same relief as sought for in this writ petition are pending consideration in the trial Court, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot entertain the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies available to him against the order dated 15.4.2008 passed in I.A.No.100 of 2008 in O.SN.o.285 of 2008 by VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, if so advised. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 21st January, 2009 bcj