IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 898 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/01/2009 in WP NO : 18134 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: A.Balraj S/o.late A.Ghattaiah R/o.H.No.10-3-217, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, 2 The Asst. Town Planner, Circle No.IV, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 D.Narsing Rao, R/o.H.No.10-3-215, Humayunnagar, .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SRI. P.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.898 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari). The appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No:18134 of 2006 on 19.1.2009. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking a direction to respondents-1 and 2 to initiate action against the illegal construction made by the 3rd respondent as held by orders passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in A.S.No:251 of 2003 on 6.4.2004. The learned single Judge having observed that there are civil disputes between the writ petitioner and respondent No.3 leading to file suits and appeals against each other and since respondents-1 and 2 have already issued notice to respondent No:3 for removal of the unauthorized constructions, if any, it cannot be said that they are not taking steps to implement the orders passed by the Civil Court, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. The fact that remains undisputed is that there are civil disputes between the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent leading to file suits and appeals against each other. It is also apparent on the face of the record that respondents-1 and 2 have already issued notice to 3rd respondent for removal of the unauthorized constructions, if any. In this back ground of the matter, We feel that the order of the learned single Judge, does not warrant any interference by this Court. This writ appeal is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI ____________________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 9th July, 2009. Dvs/Gurc HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.898 OF 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Dated 9th July, 2009.