ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner states that she is the absolute owner and lawful possessor of land admeasuring 2187 square meters, equivalent to 2615.65 square yards, situated at Apparel Export Park, Gundla Pochampally, Survey No. 509/1/3, Medchal Mandal, the then Ranga Reddy District. She asserts that she acquired the said land through a lawful process of allotment by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., followed by execution of agreements of sale, a supplemental agreement and a registered sale deed, and that her title and possession are legal, valid and subsisting. 1.1. Initially, 2000 square meters was allotted to Petitioner by the official respondents under letters dated 30.03.2013, 08.04.2013 and 10.09.2013. Pursuant to the said allotment, an Agreement of Sale dated 09.11.2013 was entered into between Petitioner and the Corporation in respect of the said extent. The total sale consideration fixed for the said land was Rs.84,00,000/-, which was paid by Petitioner. Upon execution of the agreement and payment of consideration, possession of land was delivered to Petitioner by the Corporation on 09.11.2013. It is stated, thereafter, the 2 nd Respondent conducted a survey and found that Petitioner was in possession of excess extent of 187 square meters over and above the originally allotted 2000 square meters. For the said excess land, the 2nd Respondent issued a demand notice calling upon Petitioner to pay the requisite sale consideration. Petitioner complied with the said demand and paid Rs.9,61,361/- towards the sale consideration for the excess extent. 1.2. It is further stated, pursuant to payment of the said amount, Petitioner and the Corporation entered into a Supplemental Agreement dated 06.11.2014 in respect of the excess extent of 187 square meters, which was registered as Document No.4351/2014. By virtue of the said supplemental agreement, total extent of land in Petitioner's possession was regularised at 2187 square meters after due verification. After complying with the conditions stipulated in the Agreement of Sale and the Supplemental Agreement, the 2 nd Respondent executed a Sale Deed dated 09.12.2014 in her favour conveying the total extent of 2187 square meters. Though executed on 09.12.2014, the sale deed was registered as Document No.1323/2015. Petitioner states that the sale deed clearly describes the boundaries of the land as North: existing 30 meters wide Z.P. Road, South: land allotted to dormitory; East: existing 30 meters wide road; and West: CFC. 1.3. Though executed on 09.12.2014, the sale deed was registered as Document No.1323/2015. Petitioner states that the sale deed clearly describes the boundaries of the land as North: existing 30 meters wide Z.P. Road, South: land allotted to dormitory; East: existing 30 meters wide road; and West: CFC. 1.3. Petitioner asserts that she constructed the building and compound wall on the said land after taking possession and even prior to execution of the supplemental agreement dated 06.11.2014. After execution of the sale deed, she has been enjoying peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous possession and enjoyment of the property since 2014 without any objection from the Corporation. Petitioner paid the entire sale consideration aggregating to Rs.93,61,361/- comprising Rs.84,00,000/- for the original extent and Rs.9,61,361/-for the excess extent. It is contended that the land on the western side of Petitioner's plot had already been allotted by the Corporation to Respondent No.5 much prior to 2015 and Respondent No.5 has been in possession of the said land for several years under a registered sale deed with boundaries fixed. Similarly, the land on the southern side of Petitioner's plot was allotted to Shravya Logistics, which has also constructed a compound wall. All such allotments and registrations were completed prior to 2015. According to Petitioner, there is no land belonging to the Corporation remaining around her plot and there was never any grievance raised by the Corporation alleging encroachment by Petitioner. 1.4. Petitioner states that the 2nd Respondent issued the letter dated 02.07.2022 proposing to conduct a joint survey on 08.07.2022, allegedly under the strength of the letter dated 17.07.2021 submitted by Respondent No.5. Petitioner issued reply dated 06.07.2022 to the said letter, questioning the authority and basis for the proposed survey and also requesting the 2nd Respondent to furnish a copy of the letter dated 17.07.2021 allegedly submitted by Respondent No.5. Despite her specific request, the 2nd Respondent never furnished a copy of the letter dated 17.07.2021; after her reply dated 06.07.2022, no further notice or communication was issued to her in respect of any survey, except the impugned notice dated 02.07.2024. 1.5. Petitioner states that the impugned letter dated 02.07.2024 was received on 11.07.2024, directing her to remove the compound wall on the western side within 15 days, failing which the authorities of TGIIC-IALA were stated to remove the same without any further notice. 1.5. Petitioner states that the impugned letter dated 02.07.2024 was received on 11.07.2024, directing her to remove the compound wall on the western side within 15 days, failing which the authorities of TGIIC-IALA were stated to remove the same without any further notice. It is contended that impugned letter was issued without issuing any prior show-cause notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without associating her in any survey or measurement. The impugned notice was accompanied by a sketch plan which bears only the signatures of Respondents 2 to 4. The sketch does not bear the signature of Petitioner or of other adjoining landholders, including the owner on the southern side. According to Petitioner, this clearly establishes that respondents themselves conducted survey unilaterally without her knowledge or participation. 1.6. Petitioner specifically contends that when the Corporation does not have any land on the western side of her plot, respondents had no authority to survey her land on that side without notice or consent. She alleges that the survey and the impugned notice were issued solely to extend benefit to Respondent No.5 and that the entire action is influenced by the complaint made by Respondent No.5. 1.7. It is alleged that on a reading of the impugned notice and the attached sketch, it is evident that the dispute, if any, is purely between Petitioner and Respondent No.5, both being private parties holding land under registered sale deeds. Petitioner contends that such a boundary dispute cannot be decided by Respondents 1 to 4 and that proper and lawful remedy available to Respondent No.5, if aggrieved, is to approach a competent civil court. Petitioner states that the direction issued by the 2nd Respondent to remove the compound wall within 15 days, coupled with the threat of forcible removal without further notice, is arbitrary, illegal and amounts to high- handed exercise of power. Petitioner asserts that respondents are attempting to take law into their own hands without authority of law. 2. While issuing notice before admission, this Court by order dated 19.07.2024 directed that status quo be maintained in respect of land (plot) admeasuring 2615.65 square yards of Apparel Export Park, Gundla Pochampally in Survey No. 509/1/3 of Gundla Pochampally till 30.07.2024 and the said order was extended from time to time. 3. 2. While issuing notice before admission, this Court by order dated 19.07.2024 directed that status quo be maintained in respect of land (plot) admeasuring 2615.65 square yards of Apparel Export Park, Gundla Pochampally in Survey No. 509/1/3 of Gundla Pochampally till 30.07.2024 and the said order was extended from time to time. 3. Respondents 1 to 4, in their counter affidavit, categorically denied all the allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides and violation of principles of natural justice made by Petitioner. They contend that Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with the records and in discharge of the statutory and administrative functions of the Corporation. It is stated, Petitioner was initially granted provisional allotment of land admeasuring 2000 square meters at Apparel Export Park, Gundlapochampally, on 30.03.2013, followed by final allotment on 10.09.2013, for the purpose of setting up hospitality services, technical skills institution, logistics services and support, at a nominal rate of Rs.4,200/- per square meter. Pursuant thereto, an Agreement of Sale dated 09.11.2013 was executed between Petitioner and the Corporation in respect of the said extent, and possession of the land was delivered to Petitioner on the same date. 3.1. During verification and measurement, it was found that Petitioner was in possession of excess extent of 187 square meters over and above the allotted extent of 2000 square meters; Petitioner admitted such excess possession and agreed to regularisation of the same. Accordingly, Petitioner paid cost of the excess land along with regularisation fee as demanded by the Corporation. A Supplemental Agreement dated 06.11.2014 was executed in respect of the excess extent of 187 square meters. Thereafter, a Sale Deed bearing Document No.1323 of 2015 was registered on 17.03.2015 in favour of Petitioner conveying the total extent of land admeasuring 2187 square meters, being the originally-allotted extent of 2000 square meters and the excess extent of 187 square meters. Respondents 1 to 4 submit that the Petitioner's title and possession are confined only to the said extent of 2187 square meters and not beyond. 3.2. Respondents 1 to 4 stated that Respondent No.5 was independently allotted land admeasuring 3990 square meters at Apparel Export Park pursuant to provisional allotment dated 07.12.2007 and final allotment dated 17.04.2008. Respondents 1 to 4 submit that the Petitioner's title and possession are confined only to the said extent of 2187 square meters and not beyond. 3.2. Respondents 1 to 4 stated that Respondent No.5 was independently allotted land admeasuring 3990 square meters at Apparel Export Park pursuant to provisional allotment dated 07.12.2007 and final allotment dated 17.04.2008. An Agreement of Sale was executed on 29.04.2008 in favour of Respondent No.5, and subsequently a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.11497 of 2019 was executed on 03.08.2019 conveying the said extent with specified boundaries. Respondent No.5 made a representation dated 17.07.2021 to the 2 nd Respondent alleging that Petitioner had encroached upon a portion of land belonging to Respondent No.5 on the north-eastern side. Upon receipt of the said representation, and with an intention to ascertain the ground reality and to maintain peace and harmony among neighbouring allottees in the industrial park, the 2 nd Respondent initiated steps to conduct a joint survey and demarcation. 3.3. Accordingly, notices dated 12.04.2022, 18.06.2022 and 02.07.2022 were issued to both the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 calling upon them to attend the joint survey proposed to demarcate the exact boundaries between the respective plots. Despite receipt of the said notices, Petitioner failed to attend the joint survey and did not seek any adjournment or extension of time. In view of non-cooperation of Petitioner, the Corporation proceeded with the survey in order to discharge its obligation to regulate the industrial park. The survey revealed that Petitioner encroached upon an extent of approximately 30 square meters of land belonging to Respondent No.5 and had constructed a compound wall with a length of 54.75 meters instead of the sanctioned length of 54 meters. It is stated, a site plan was prepared clearly depicting the encroached area and demarcating the boundaries of the respective plots. Based on the findings of the survey and the site plan, the 2nd Respondent issued the impugned letter dated 02.07.2024 informing Petitioner of the encroachment and directing her to remove the compound wall constructed in excess of the land allotted to her. 3.4. It is also stated, Petitioner, having received repeated notices for joint survey and having deliberately chosen not to participate, cannot now allege violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned action was taken only after following due process and affording sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner. 4. 3.4. It is also stated, Petitioner, having received repeated notices for joint survey and having deliberately chosen not to participate, cannot now allege violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned action was taken only after following due process and affording sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner. 4. Respondent No.5, in its counter affidavit, states that it is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 3990 square meters situated at Apparel Export Park, Gundlapochampally, having acquired the same pursuant to allotment dated 07.12.2007 and registered Sale Deed dated 06.07.2019 bearing Document No.11497 of 2019. Its title and possession over the said land are lawful and undisputed. It is contended, Petitioner unauthorisedly and illegally encroached upon an extent of about 30 square meters of Respondent No.5's land by raising a compound wall in a high-handed manner, thereby interfering with the lawful enjoyment of Respondent No.5's property. This illegal act of encroachment compelled Respondent No.5 to submit a complaint dated 17.07.2021 to the 2nd Respondent seeking redressal. 4.1. It is further stated, pursuant to the said complaint, multiple notices were issued by the Corporation for joint survey and demarcation, but Petitioner deliberately avoided participation in the survey proceedings with the sole intention of preventing the illegal encroachment from being detected. The survey conducted by the Corporation clearly established the encroachment made by Petitioner. A site plan was prepared reflecting the encroached area. Petitioner, being fully aware of the encroachment, deliberately avoided signing the site plan prepared pursuant to the survey. The southern neighbour, namely Shravya Logistics, did not encroach upon any portion of Respondent No.5's land; therefore, there are no disputes between Respondent No.5 and Shravya Logistics, which further demonstrates that encroachment is solely attributable to Petitioner. 4.2. Respondent No.5 contends that Petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands with the sole intention of perpetuating an illegal encroachment. It is asserted that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked to protect or perpetuate illegal acts such as encroachment upon another's land. 5. Heard Sri K. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri M. Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGIIC and Sri Maddela Ravinder, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. 6. It is asserted that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked to protect or perpetuate illegal acts such as encroachment upon another's land. 5. Heard Sri K. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri M. Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGIIC and Sri Maddela Ravinder, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. 6. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring 2187 square meters at Apparel Export Park, Gundla Pochampally, having acquired the same pursuant to allotment, execution of agreement of sale, supplemental agreement and a registered sale deed executed by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited. It is equally admitted that Respondent No.5 is the owner of land admeasuring 3990 square meters pursuant to an independent allotment and a registered sale deed executed in its favour. The controversy in the present Writ Petition arises from an allegation of encroachment of about 30 square meters by Petitioner into the land of Respondent No.5 and the consequential administrative direction issued by the 2 nd Respondent requiring removal of the compound wall allegedly constructed on the encroached portion. 7. Petitioner disputes the existence, extent and correctness of the alleged encroachment, the manner in which the survey was conducted, and the measurements relied upon by respondents. Respondents, on the other hand, rely upon the survey and site plan prepared by the Corporation. The dispute therefore involves seriously contested questions of fact relating to boundary alignment, physical measurement and possession. 8. It is to be seen, the 5th respondent had taken out I.A.No. 1 of 2025 to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for survey and demarcation of land of petitioner and Respondent No.5 and to fix the common boundary between them with the help of a surveyor to be deputed by Respondent No.2 to 5. In the said Application, it was alleged by Respondent No.5 that petitioner got conducted survey without giving any notice to them and petitioner avoided survey and demarcation of land as they encroached 30 meters of land of Respondent No.5. In the said Application, it was alleged by Respondent No.5 that petitioner got conducted survey without giving any notice to them and petitioner avoided survey and demarcation of land as they encroached 30 meters of land of Respondent No.5. Taking into consideration the said submission, this Court by order dated 25.08.2025 appointed Advocate Commissioners who submitted their report dated 24.09.2025 which reads as under: “ This Hon'ble Court through orders shown above directed us to visit for Survey and Demarcation of land of Writ Petitioner and respondent no.5 and to fix the common boundary between them with the help of Surveyor to be deputed by Respondent no 2 to 5, in the presence of all the parties 2. We submit that by discussing with all the counsels, parties and also the authorities by their convenience fixed the date and time, further we have issued notices through Whastsapp to the counsels for the petitioner as well as to the counsels for the Respondent No's 2 to 5, on 13/09/2025 by stating that to attend for survey on 15/09/2025 at 10:00 am 3. We submit that on 14.09.2025 we have received Whatsapp message from the Petitioner counsel stating that the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.08 2025 in IA no. 1/2025 in WP No.19364/2024 they have filed Writ Appeal No 1026/2025 which is listed on 15.09.2025 on the same day which I had mentioned in the Notice to attend for the survey We further submits that after knowing about the said appeal we have informed the same to all the counsels as well as the authorities by saying that the survey shall be conducted basing upon the outcome of the said writ appeal in the interests of all the parties in the main writ petition, we shall decide after the outcome of the said writ appeal. However, the said writ appeal No. 1026/2025 was dismissed on 15.09.2025 After that we have again sent the notices to the e-mails and also on the WhatsApp numbers of Petitioner Counsels, Respondent counsels and the TGIIC Authorities on 15.09.2025 requesting them to attend for survey and Demarcation on 16.09.2025 at 10 AM. 4. We submit that On 16.09. 2025 at 10 AM, we both Advocate Commissioners had visited the spot ie, at Pokarna Ltd, Gundlapochampally, Medchal Dist. 4. We submit that On 16.09. 2025 at 10 AM, we both Advocate Commissioners had visited the spot ie, at Pokarna Ltd, Gundlapochampally, Medchal Dist. Neither the petitioners nor their Representatives nor the counsel for the petitioner was present We were informed on the phone by the Petitioner counsel on record as well as arguing counsel both that the petitioners may not attend the survey and also informed us to continue the survey However, in the interest of petitioners we waited up to 11:30 AM It is further submitted that the staff of the Respondents No 2 to 4 ie, K. Sravanthi Zonal Manager TGIIC, K.A Sreevani Commissioner TGIIC, TAnjaiah Deputy Zonal Manager(Engineer), U Shiva Kumar Project Engineer and surveyors and the Respondent No’s 5 ie., GV. Ramana and his counsel, i.e., Sri Ravinder Maddela, were present during the survey 5. We submit that in their presence with the assistance of the TGIIC authorities started survey by measuring with tape and took Measurements and also to cross check the same, we asked them to arrange the machinery for Digital survey. Accordingly, they brought “Total Station machine” to measure the Petitioners Plot and Respondent no. 5 plots towards north side where the encroachment tookplace. We further submits that the Petitioner Plot length is 54.75 mts instead of 54 meters towards north side and the Respondent no. 5 Ploth length is 52.45 mts instead of 53.20 meters as per their allotments and as mentioned in their sale deeds. It is clearly showing that the Petitioners have encroached 0.75 mts of Respondent no.5 plot and constructed the compound wall within the Respondents no 5 Plot by encroaching 6. We submit that after the Demarcation of boundary it made clear that in length 0.75mts and in width 40.50 mts, Total area is 30 mts which is encroached by the Petitioner 7. We submit that the encroachment part of the petitioners in the Respondent no 5 plot which was marked boundary clearly by painting the boundary was fixed in front of all the authorities, parties and counsel. The photographs of the survey also herewith filed. 8. We submit that Along with this report we are enclosing the copy of the notice served upon the Respondent 2 to 4 authorities and the respondent No’s 5. I am also filing the proceedings taken up by me at the spot along with the signatures of the parties attended”. The photographs of the survey also herewith filed. 8. We submit that Along with this report we are enclosing the copy of the notice served upon the Respondent 2 to 4 authorities and the respondent No’s 5. I am also filing the proceedings taken up by me at the spot along with the signatures of the parties attended”. 9. The Advocate-Commissioners report shows that petitioner encroached 0.75 meters of Respondent No.5 plot and constructed the compound wall. These are all the aspects which require appreciation of evidence which this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot undertake. 10. It is well-settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is discretionary and is not intended to be exercised for adjudication of disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and such issues are more appropriately adjudicated by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit. 10.1. Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. No statutory provision has been brought to the notice of this Court which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of disputes relating to boundary, encroachment or possession between private parties holding land under registered conveyances. 11. While the Corporation, as the allotting authority and administrator of the industrial park, is empowered to regulate land use, conduct surveys for administrative purposes and maintain discipline within the estate, such administrative action cannot be elevated to a final adjudication of civil rights between two private allottees. The impugned letter dated 02.07.2024 is thus in the nature of an administrative direction based on a survey conducted by the Corporation. It does not purport to finally determine title or conclusively adjudicate the inter se boundary dispute. 12. The record indicates that notices dated 12.04.2022, 18.06.2022 and 02.07.2022 were issued proposing a joint survey. Even assuming disputes regarding the manner of survey or participation, the existence of contested facts itself reinforces the conclusion that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolution of such disputes. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a vacuum. 12. The record indicates that notices dated 12.04.2022, 18.06.2022 and 02.07.2022 were issued proposing a joint survey. Even assuming disputes regarding the manner of survey or participation, the existence of contested facts itself reinforces the conclusion that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolution of such disputes. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a vacuum. Where a party disputes factual findings and seeks adjudication of civil rights, the appropriate course is not to expand writ jurisdiction but to relegate the parties to a forum competent to record evidence and render definitive findings. 13. At the same time, this Court is conscious that relegating Petitioner to a civil forum should not result in denial of an effective remedy. Since the impugned action is administrative in nature and does not have statutory finality, Petitioner is not foreclosed from challenging the correctness of the survey, the allegation of encroachment or the consequential action before a competent civil court. It is therefore, necessary to clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the survey, existence or extent of encroachment, or the merits of the rival claims. All such issues are expressly left open to be adjudicated by the competent civil court in accordance with law. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Letter. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 15. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, giving liberty to Petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief in respect of the alleged encroachment and boundary dispute, including adjudication on the correctness of the survey and measurements, in accordance with law. It is clarified that any proceedings initiated before the civil court shall be decided independently, on their own merits, and uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. No costs. 16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.