ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Municipality. 2. It is a case where the petitioner asserts that he is the owner of Plot No. 9 in an extent of 100 Square yards in Survey No. 516, situated at Venkat Ramana Colony, Bhudan Pochampally Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District (erstwhile Nalgonda District); and respondent No. 4 by encroaching into the petitioner's property is making construction without obtaining permission. The petitioner submits that he made a complaint on 10.1.2020 to the 3rd respondent-Commissioner however no action is taken. 3. At the outset, it may be noted that the specific allegation in the writ affidavit is that the 4th respondent had encroached into the petitioner's land, there by confirming possession of the 4th respondent on the subject premises. Whether the occupation of the 4th respondent is legal or illegal cannot be decided by the 3rd respondent Municipal Commissioner under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Under the Act, there is no requirement of obtaining prior permission before proceeding with the construction, as in terms of Section 174(2) of the Act, based on self-certification stating that the building permission applied is as per the Master Plan/detailed Planning scheme/local area plan, the building permission can be sought online for plot size upto 500 Square meters and construction height upto 10 meters. If there is any defect/mis-statement in the self-certification and in compliance, the risk of making construction is on the person who is making construction in the property, and if the construction is discovered as unauthorized and not in conformity with the specifications, the Commissioner can take action in terms of sub-section (10) of Section 174 and sub-section (9) of Section 176 of the Act. 4. So far as the allegation of illegal construction in the present case on hand, except stating that respondent No. 4 has illegally encroached into the land and making construction, he had in fact not made any effort to seek information from the authorities whether any application was made by the 4th respondent seeking construction permission and if so, the basis on which such application was made; and whether any permission was granted to the 4th respondent to make construction. In other words, the petitioner has not done minimum homework required on his part before approaching this Court complaining about the inaction of respondent authorities in stopping the alleged illegal construction. 5. Further, the very assertion of the petitioner in the writ affidavit on oath before this Court is to the effect that the 4th respondent had encroached into his property, thereby confirming the possession of the 4th respondent albeit illegal and unauthorized. Unfortunately, the Municipal Authorities have not been entrusted with the functions and duties to determine whether a particular individuals occupation of land is legal or illegal. The limited functions that are entrusted to the Municipal authorities under the Act is with respect to regulated development of zones and wards, and to issue construction permissions in the respective areas by following due process prescribed under the Act. 6. So far as the encroachment into petitioner's land is concerned, if the allegation of the petitioner that the 4th respondent had encroached into and occupied the petitioner's land is taken to be true, even assuming for the sake of argument that the authorities are not taking action against the alleged illegal construction being made by the 4th respondent, the remedy of the petitioner with respect to illegal encroachment is to approach competent civil Court seeking mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. 7. It is unfortunate that a large number of cases of this nature are being filed day in and day out and these aspects are being ignored by the learned Counsels who are pleading before the Court for their respective clients, without realizing that the very averments in the writ affidavit before this Court -would prima facie disentitle them from seeking appropriate injunctive reliefs against the parties who have allegedly encroached or attempting to encroach the property. 8. Coming to the present case on hand, with respect to alleged unauthorized construction, there is no material placed by the petitioner before this Court whether there is any permission obtained by respondent No. 4 and the basis for obtaining such permission, if any. 9. Considering all these aspects, this Court is not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus for the reasons stated supra. 10. 9. Considering all these aspects, this Court is not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus for the reasons stated supra. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate information from the respondent authorities with respect to the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction being made by respondent No. 4 and thereafter take appropriate steps if he has any grievance. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.