THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8285 of 2011 Dated 29.03.2011 Between: Pasumarthi Muktheswari …Petitioner And The District Collector, Khammam and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri E.Anjana Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for respondent No.7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in not taking action against respondent No.7 for carrying on illegal construction over the petitioner’s land comprised in survey No.559 of Mandalapalli Revenue Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District as illegal. The petitioner has pleaded that respondent No.7 has encroached into her property in survey No.559 and started raising construction without even obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat concerned, that the petitioner caused a legal notice issued to respondent No.6 in this regard and that respondent No.6 issued a reply, wherein it is stated that on receipt of the petitioner’s notice, he has issued a notice to respondent No.7 calling upon him to produce the relevant documents and that till then, he shall stop construction. Complaining that despite the said notice respondent No.7 is carrying on illegal construction, the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing respondent No.6. The grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition is two fold, namely, (i) that respondent No.7 has encroached into her property and been raising construction, and (ii) that such construction is being raised without permission from the Mandalapalli Gram Panchayat. As regards the first grievance of the petitioner, the dispute is purely civil in nature, which needs to be resolved by the competent civil Court. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to invoke the common law remedy of filing a civil suit before the competent civil Court in this regard. As regards the second grievance of the petitioner, even on her own showing respondent No.6 has responded to her notice and called upon respondent No.7 to produce relevant documents while restraining him from raising further construction. At the hearing, the learned standing counsel stated that if respondent No.7 is raising construction without permission, respondent No.6 will take appropriate action in accordance with law. This statement is placed on record and the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of subject to the above observations. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10295 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th March, 2011 GHN