ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the representation of petitioner to take action against the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the house bearing No.10-2-347/B/51/A, constructed in an area of 82 square yards situated at Asifnagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that the said property is purchased by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.2970/2008, dated 08.07.2008, from Mrs. Yasmeen Hussain wife of Mohd. Abdul Razzak, represented by respondent No.3 herein, who is none other than her father. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that between the house of petitioner and respondent No.3, there is a common passage, on which, the 3rd respondent has constructed a ramp. It is stated that such construction is contrary to the understanding between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and inspite of bringing it to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 by representation dated 07.01.2009, no action is being taken. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, while denying the allegations of petitioner, it is stated that there is no ramp on the common passage. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has constructed a roof over the common passage without obtaining permission from respondents 1 and 2, and subsequently, on the application of 3rd respondent, the said constructions, including the alleged roof over the common passage, were regularized under BPS scheme, vide proceedings No.BPS/48702/C7/CZ/08, dated 05.07.2010. 5. A separate counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent on similar lines, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. 6. Though there is an allegation of construction of ramp by the 3rd respondent, the same is categorically denied by the respondents in the counter affidavits. It appears that a roof is constructed on the common passage without obtaining permission, but later, on the application submitted by the 3rd respondent, it was regularized, therefore, the same cannot be said to be unauthorized, so as to issue any directions for removal of such construction. In any event, as there are factual disputes, it is not possible for this Court to record any definite finding on the plea of petitioner that unauthorized constructions are made by the 3rd respondent. In any event, as there are factual disputes, it is not possible for this Court to record any definite finding on the plea of petitioner that unauthorized constructions are made by the 3rd respondent. Further, it is to be noticed that the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner was in the year 2009 and this writ petition is filed on 09.09.2011 i.e. nearly after two years of alleged representation. In view of the stand of respondents in the counter affidavits that no unauthorized constructions are made by the 3rd respondent and that the roof over common passage is already regularized, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of relief as prayed for. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, WPMP.No.31482 of 2011 stands closed.