THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5071 of 2011 Date:04.03.2011 Between: Syed Hameeduddin ..... Petitioner AND The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Pargi, Revenue Mandal, Pargi, District Ranga Reddy and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Mohd.Ghulam Hussain Counsel for Respondents: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in stopping illegal and unauthorised construction being carried on by respondent Nos.2 and 3 over the land bearing Survey No.281/1 of Pargi Village and Town, Ranga Reddy District as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry on the objection letter, dated 29.01.2011, submitted by him and stop construction by respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have heard Mr. Mohd.Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. From the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears, there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other, in respect of land in Survey No.281/1. It is the case of the petitioner that though respondent No.2, who is his senior paternal uncle’s son, has a share in the above-mentioned survey number, as the property is not divided by metes and bounds, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have encroached into his land and been trying to raise construction. That the petitioner has filed his objections vide his letter, dated 29.01.2011, to the purported application of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for building permission and that pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 has issued notice, dated 03.02.2011, calling upon respondent No.2 to stop construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said notice, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not stopped the construction. A perusal of notice, dated 03.02.2011, issued by respondent No.1 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, shows that it has been stated therein that the petitioner filed his objections before the Gram Panchayat stating that a part of the land over which respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been raising construction belongs to him, that respondent No.1 has already given permission for construction vide letter bearing No.GPP/24/2010-11, dated 05.05.2010, and that in view of the dispute raised by the petitioner respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall stop construction. The contents of this notice thus do not support the case of the petitioner that the application filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for building permission is still pending and that they are seeking to construct the building without such permission. On the contrary, it is evident from the said notice that respondent No.1 has directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to stop construction on the objections raised by the petitioner claiming that respondent Nos.2 and 3 encroached into the petitioner’s land and raising construction thereon. In my opinion, so long as the building permission granted by respondent No.1 is in force, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to proceed with the construction. Respondent No.1 has no power or authority to interfere with such construction at the instance of the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in encroaching into his land, the only remedy available for him is to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate relief against them. In this view of the matter, no writ of mandamus can be issued to respondent No.1 to prevent respondent Nos.2 and 3 from raising construction in pursuance of the sanctioned plan. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6279 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th March, 2011 VGB