IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 3562 of 2008 Between: Nalla Ganapathi Rao S/o. Nalla Mallaiaha R/o. H.No. 16-1-24/2/10, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad-500 059 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Syeda Saleha Nasreen W/o. Sri Syed Kaleemullah Hussain Farah Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad-500 059 .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the first Respondent corporation to take necessary action against the second respondent as per the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act to ensure that the second respondents does not make any contractions in her property bearing No. 16-1-24/A/23, situated in Farah Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad in the absence of necessary sanction granted by the first respondent authorities in the interest of justice and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.BHARATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: The substantive grievance of the petitioner, as apparent from the pleadings in the accompanying affidavit, is as regards the constructions made by the second respondent in his property bearing No.16-1-24/A/23, situated in Farah Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, in a manner which allegedly encroach into the petitioner’s right onto a 22” thick compound wall between the houses of the petitioner and the second respondent. This substantive grievance is leveraged as public interest and alleging a statutory violation by the second respondent, invoking the statutory obligation of the first respondent. In view of the substantial grievance of the petitioner disclosed in the writ petition, he must pursue an appropriate remedy in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction against any alleged encroachment by the second respondent as well as against any alleged transgressions by the second respondent, as the petitioner claims easementary rights to light and ventilation. In view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the issues presented in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy. ____________ 25.02.2008 kdl