IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20306 of 2008 Between: P.Aswani Kumar S/o. Late Apparao R/o. Ward Womens College Road, Palakol, W.G.District, Presently Residing at Karkana, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretarya, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Palakollu Municipality, Palakol W.G.District, Rep. by its Commissioner. 3 Sri Devarapu Venkata Satya Ananda Narasimha Rao S/o. Venkata Swamy Naidu @ Chilakayya Veeravari Street, Palakollu- W.G.District. .....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 a Writ of Mandmaus or any other appropriate Writ, order direction declaring the action of the respondents 1&2 in not taking action on the legal notice dt.28-5-2008 got issued by the petitioner for preventing the 3rd respondents herein from making construction in R.S.No. 424, Palakol as illegal, arbitrary, violative Article 14 and 1 of the Construction of India nad consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to take action on the said notice dt. 28-5-2008 got issued by the petitioner herein and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20306 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by P. Aswani Kumar assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 on the representations made by him pointing out the illegal constructions by the 3rd respondent in R.S.NO. 424 of Palakol Municipality. 2. The petitioner claims to have issued a legal notice on 28-5-2008 to the respondents 1 and 2 requesting them to prevent the 3rd respondent from making illegal constructions in R.S.NO.424 of Palakol Municipality, Palakol. 3. It is stated in para 3 of the writ aﬃdavit that the petitioner along with his family members ﬁled O.S.No. 108 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram against one Repaka Sree Ramamulu and others seeking the following reliefs. “To declare that the Plaint ‘B’ Schedule property is joint water tank between Plaintiﬀ’s and defendants and no joint owner including the Plaintiﬀs are entitled to change the nature of the property and in consequence thereof directing the defendants to restore the ‘B’ schedule property to its original position i.e. as water tank by removing the unloading earth etc., within a speciﬁed time, otherwise, permit the plaintiﬀs 2 to 12 to do so through process of law and allow them to recover the expenditure incurred thereby. It is humbly submitted that in I.A.No. 365/98 in O.S.No. 108/98 the Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction” 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri S. Nageshwar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the Palakol Municipality received notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 28-5-2008 pointing out the illegal constructions by the 3rd respondent in RS.No.424 of Palakol and there being no response from the respondents No.1 and 2, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. A fact remains that the petitioner and his family members ﬁled O.S.No. 108 of 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that 3rd respondent ﬁlled up water tank area and it necessitated him and his family members to ﬁle the suit. Whether the water tank area is a joint property of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is required to be adjudicated in a civil Court. The dispute between the petitioner and 3rd respondent is purely a private dispute and there is no public law element involved warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since, the petitioner has already invoked Civil Court jurisdiction, he has to establish his rights over the water tank area in the civil suit. In the given facts and circumstances invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wholly unwarranted. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 18th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20306 OF 2008 18th September, 2008.