THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.9048 of 2010 Dated 11th October, 2011 Between: Uriti Tirupathi Rao and others …Petitioners And The Municipal Council, Saluru Municipality, Vizianagaram District, rep.by its Commissioner and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Vidyasagar Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Bheemanna For Sri S.Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are claiming to be in occupation of certain shop rooms in Pedda Market, Vizianagaram District. They trace their right as tenants through respondent No.2. They feel aggrieved by the proposals of respondent No.1 in seeking to construct public toilets near the shops in their occupation. According to them, the proposal to construct toilets over the land, which does not belong to respondent No.1, is illegal, apart from such construction causing inconvenience and health hazards to them. At the hearing, it has come out that when respondent No.1 passed a resolution for collecting rents from the shop keepers of Pedda Market, in which, the petitioners’ shops are also situated, respondent No.2 has filed W.P.No.13065 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 08.08.2011. This Court has inter alia observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The nature of the dispute referred to above would show that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are setting up title in them respectively. This court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be in a position to decide the title dispute, as adjudication of such dispute requires consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, to be let in by both the parties. It is, therefore, appropriate that the petitioner shall get its title declared by filing a civil suit before the competent civil court. Indeed the petitioner filed a suit, as noted above, but the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on advice, the said suit was withdrawn. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court when a serious dispute regarding the title persists between the two parties. As noted above, the only appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil court seeking declaration of its title and any other appropriate relief.” Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though respondent No.2 has obtained pattadar passbook in respect of the property, over which, the toilets are proposed to be constructed, respondent No.1 is seeking to proceed with the construction. In my opinion, for the same reasons as are contained in the order, dated 08.08.2011, reproduced above, this writ petition cannot be adjudicated on merits in view of the fact that there is a dispute regarding the title. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case with liberty to respondent No.2 to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate reliefs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 21.04.2010, as extended on 03.06.2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.11693 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.1697 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th October, 2011 VGB