ORDER : T. Vinod Kumar, J. 1. The matter was taken up for hearing for admission on 08.08.2024 and was argued by Mr. Mogili Anaveni, the substitute Counsel for considerable length of time. 2. On this Court pointing out that the petitioner who claims to be making construction on the strength of building permission/letter of approval for commencement of work issued by the 3rd respondent dated 17.07.2021 having purchased only plot of land under sale deed dated 20.11.2021 and neither a finished or unfinished building with the land appurtenant thereto and as such the petitioner is required to obtain building permission for undertaking construction and since no such permission has been obtained, the construction being made by the petitioner cannot be considered as being made in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, and the Building Rules, 2019, the learned Counsel for the petitioner arguing the matter had sought short accommodation for a day on the ground that the Counsel who filed the Writ Petition is unwell. 3. Upon the said request being made by the learned Counsel arguing the matter, the matter was adjourned to today i.e., on 09.08.2024. Today even before the list was taken up for hearing on admission, request was made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of time. However, this Court while declining the request made for grant time, had informed the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the matter would be proceeded with and the Counsel can appear even though hybrid mode. In the after- noon session when the matter is being called for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, this Court had considered the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition for disposing of the Writ Petition. 4. As per the writ affidavit averments, it is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner, possessor and enjoyer of plot No.77, admeasuring an extent of 141.56 square metres situated in Maruthi Nagar in Sy. Nos.572, 573 and 574 part of Ghatkesar village, Ghatkesar Municipality having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed dated 20.11.2021; that the petitioner's vendor had obtained construction permission dated 17.07.2021 and had started the construction work. 5. Nos.572, 573 and 574 part of Ghatkesar village, Ghatkesar Municipality having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed dated 20.11.2021; that the petitioner's vendor had obtained construction permission dated 17.07.2021 and had started the construction work. 5. It is also the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner's vendor while the subject construction is under progress had sold the plot of land along with work in progress and that the petitioner on purchasing the same had taken up the remaining work of construction. 6. Petitioner contends that while she is proceeding to complete the remaining construction work, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are wantonly obstructing the petitioner from proceeding with the construction work by demanding to pay additional amounts to them, failing which she is being threatened by the said person that they would not allow her to proceed with the construction work. 7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid respondents are resorting to the aforesaid action with the help and connivance of the officials of the 3rd respondent and thus, she has approached the 3rd respondent authority and submitted representation dated 27.07.2024 by sending the same through courier and another representation on 30.07.2024 and sought for initiating action. 8. It is the further contention of the petitioner that inspite of the aforesaid representation being made by her, no action is taken. Hence, this Writ Petition. 9. Per contra, Sri B. Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent submits that admittedly the petitioner did not obtain any permission for proceeding with the construction subsequent to she purchasing the subject plot from the previous owner on 20.11.2021. 10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the claim of the petitioner of purchasing the plot with construction work commenced by her vendor is not borne out from the sale deed inasmuch as the said sale deed only shows she purchasing the open plot and thus, the claim of the petitioner of having purchased the said plot with construction work in progress cannot be accepted as a valid claim. 11. 11. Further, it is also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that even the petitioner's vendor who had obtained building permission and was issued with letter of approval for commencement of work on 17.07.2021 did not submit any intimation of commencement of work as per the conditions of the building permission order. 12. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner apprehending that the respondent authorities would initiate action, has filed this present Writ Petition by making wild allegations without even naming the officials who are stated to be supporting or conniving into the unofficial respondents in making illegal demands for money. 13. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner in order to obtain an order restraining the respondent authorities from taking any action and also in order to settle her civil disputes with the unofficial respondents has invented this route by approaching this Court by the present Writ Petition. 14. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 15. Though the petitioner claims to have approached the respondent authority and submitting representations dated 27.07.2024 and 30.07.2024, in none of the complaints/representations, any reference is made to the employee of the 3rd respondent Municipality by name. 16. From a reading of the contents of the complaint, it would appear that there are disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents in the present Writ Petition and in order to restrain the said unofficial respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the subject land and the construction made and to settle the civil disputes, the petitioner appears to have made allegation of they acting in connivance with the officials of the 3rd respondent Municipality. More over, it is also to be seen that as the building permission obtained by the petitioner's vendor is non-transferable for the petitioner to claim having continued with the construction work, could be one of the plausible reasons for the petitioner to make allegation against the officials of the respondent authority by claiming as interfering with her possession over the subject property to prevent the respondent authorities from initiating any action against the construction made by her without obtaining permission from the respondent authorities. 17. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition as filed is misconceived and the petitioner if really aggrieved by the action of the unofficial respondents is required to avail the remedies open to her in civil law by approaching the appropriate forum and cannot seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.