The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.28427 of 2011 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: Jaswanth Rao ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, A.P., and 6 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Sarosh Bastawala Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to cancel the permission, for construction, given in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 7. The petitioner averred that he and his family members are the owners of lands admeasuring Ac.4-00 in Survey No.116/4 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that respondent No.7, on payment to the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, obtained possession of land, admeasuring 1,115 square yards, in the adjoining Survey No.116 with door No.2-22-3/1/c; that respondent No.7, in turn, executed a gift deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 11th September, 2011 and; that respondent No.6 has executed a development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent Nos.4 & 5. The petitioner further averred that respondent Nos.4 & 5 have obtained building permission and have been proceeding with the construction in the said land. The petitioner has caused a legal notice issued to respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for cancelling the building permission on the ground that there is a boundary dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the other. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.3 on the said representation, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. After hearing Sri Sarosh Bastawala, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that, as the dispute raised by the petitioner being purely of civil in nature, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.3 is not expected to examine and adjudicate on the boundary dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the other. The petitioner can only avail a common law remedy of a civil suit before the competent civil Court and seek appropriate relief therefrom. In the event of his success in the civil suit, the petitioner can approach respondent No.3 for taking appropriate action. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.35103 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 20th October, 2011 LUR