HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12721 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners’ grievance, in this writ petition, is that the first respondent – Corporation had granted permission to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to construct a compound wall in their land and, despite the representation submitted by them on 27.03.2010, no action has been taken thereupon by the first respondent. Sri V.Durga Nageswara Rao, the Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent - Corporation, would submit that permission for construction of the compound wall was granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as early as on 14.11.2007 and that the petitioners, except for a bald and vague representation submitted by them on 27.03.2010, had not produced any documents in support of their contention that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had raised the compound wall in their land. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that, in any event, since the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.510 of 2008, and I.A.No.908 of 2008 therein, against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, seeking injunction, he was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I find considerable force in the submission of Sri V.Durga Nageswara Rao, the Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent – Corporation. While granting permission for construction of the compound wall, the first respondent - Corporation can only examine whether, prima facie, respondents Nos.2 and 3 had title over the land. Disputed questions of title can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. Having elected to approach the Civil Court, it is not open to the petitioner to parallely invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in O.S.No. 510 of 2008, seeking injunction against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and since the suit is said to be still pending before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, I see no reason to permit the petitioners to simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:08.06.2010 usd