HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1975 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. The appellant, who is the writ petitioner seeks to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition where he sought for a mandamus as against the alleged illegal action on the part of the respondents herein in demolishing the wall and hence, sought for reconstruction of the wall on western side of the property belonging to the petitioner herein or in the alternative to pay compensation. The claim of the appellant in short is to the effect that the appellant is the owner and possessor of the property in question and also the wall which has been existing on the western side. However, it is pointed out that the respondent authorities herein, without issuing any notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, demolished the said wall and that too in the mid night, and therefore, the entire exercise is illegal and hence, the petitioner is entitled for reconstruction or atleast in the alternative compensation thereof. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the two reports of the two Advocate-Commissioners, who have been appointed to make local inspection, and having found that the dispute is as to the right and also the alleged encroachment, did not find favour and dismissed the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that since several serious disputed questions of title and facts arose, it is not open for the appellant/petitioner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant/petitioner has got ample remedies in the normal course under common law to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs of declaration and other alternative relief of compensation etc., which can be availed and where he can seek appropriate relief by establishing certain facts. Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the appellant herein to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. The appellant is given time for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is also made clear that the period of notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act shall also be excluded in addition to the period which we have granted. No order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 13-10-2009 SKM