IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.22046 OF 2011 Date:07-12-2011 Between:- Pitla Sanjeevaraj S/o. P. Chilakaiah … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner and others … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.22046 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents herein in not taking any further action as per the petitioner’s representations, dated 14-12-2010 and 18-12-2010 and in pursuance of Lr.No.53405/TPS/CIR.16/NZ/GHMC/2010, dated 20-12-2010 issued by the 4th respondent herein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the official respondents to take further action as per the petitioner’s representations, dated 14-12-2010 and 18-12-2010. 2. The brier facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.2-2-32 situated at Sarvesani Gutta, Macha Bolaram, Alwal Circle, Ranga Reddy District. There is a government land towards the northern side of the house of the petitioner. The 5th respondent raised illegal constructions in that land by occupying the same. The petitioner submitted representations on 14-12-2010 and 18-12-2010 to the 3rd respondent requesting to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent and to remove the illegal structures. The 4th respondent issued letter, dated 20-12-2010 to the 5th respondent directing her to furnish the documents of ownership and sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the Municipal authorities did not take any steps with regard to the illegal constructions. Then, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated 19-04-2011 to the municipal authorities requesting to furnish information under the Right to information Act with regard to the complaint made by him. In response to that, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner vide letter, dated 28-04-2011, that the 5th respondent did not submit any documents. Thereafter, the municipal authorities did not take any action for removal of the illegal constructions being made by the 5th respondent in the Government land. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition to issue necessary directions to the official respondents to take appropriate action against the illegal constructions made by the 5th respondent. 3. The official respondents 1 to 4 filed counter-affidavit stating that after receiving complaints from the petitioner, it directed the 5th respondent to produce the relevant documents and the 5th respondent produced relevant documents. It is further stated that the petitioner constructed his house in the year 1969 and his neighbouring land belongs to his brother and his brother sold the same to the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent is in possession of the same from the year 1991 and the land in question is not the government land. 4. The 5th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that she is in possession of the land in question for more than 40 years having purchased the same in the year 1991. After she received letter from the municipal authorities calling upon her to produce the relevant documents, she produced the relevant documents to the official respondents. There is a common wall between her property and the property of the petitioner. The petitioner is none other than her paternal uncle. It is further submitted that she never raised any illegal structures warranting interference from the municipal authorities and the petitioner made complaints to the municipal authorities with a view to harass her. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 2 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 5th respondent encroached into the Government site and made constructions and therefore, he prays to issue a direction to the official respondents to remove the illegal structures. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that the 5th respondent constructed the building long back and the allegation that 5th respondent encroached the Government land is not correct and therefore, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent contended that the 5th respondent is paying water charges and electricity charges for the building in question and she has not encroached the Government land. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that because of the construction made by the 5th respondent there is no light and air to his house. No person can be permitted to encroach upon the Government land. Though it is stated that the 5th respondent made constructions by occupying the Government land, but the same is denied by the 5th respondent as well as by the Municipal authorities. Therefore, the issue relates to the title of the property, which cannot be resolved by this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it can be resolved by a competent civil court. 10. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J December 07, 2011. KTL