THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BNLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1529 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) The writ appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17857 of 2007 dated 18.8.2008, in allowing the writ petition. 2. The present writ appeal is filed by the respondent in the writ petition – Sri Varaha Lakshminarasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, (for short ‘the Devasthanam’) represented by its Executive Officer. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 4. The writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that the respondent –Devasthanam has no jurisdiction to interfere with the construction of the building by the petitioner at H.No./Plot No.18-13, Adivivaram Village, Seethammadhara, Ward No.36, old Sy.No.275/ID, Visakhapatnam, in pursuance of the permission granted by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation . 5. It appears that the writ petitioner is claiming ownership on the disputed land in an extent of 360.99 sq. yards on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 16.6.2000. 6. It is the contention of Sri Koka Raghava Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, that pursuant to the said sale transaction, the writ petitioner had obtained necessary permission from the Corporation in order to raise the constructions and accordingly the construction activity had been initiated and there has been a considerable progress. 7. On the contrary, it is the contention of Sri Challa Sitaramiah, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent – Devasthanam, that though the sale in favour of the writ petitioner was not in dispute, in view of the Registration (A.P.Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act No.19 of 2007), substituting Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the writ petitioner was not entitled to claim any right over the land in question. In other words, by virtue of the operation of law, particularly Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, even if there is any sale transaction in favour of the writ petitioner, the same had to be treated as ineffective and no consequential rights would flow therefrom. 8. The learned single Judge had gone into various facts and other legal position and held that the impugned action of the respondent – Devasthanam in interfering with the construction of the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and accordingly allowed the writ petition. 9. There is no dispute that in the writ petition, the writ petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus to declare that the respondent – Devasthanam, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the construction of the building. When once the writ petition is allowed and the writ of mandamus, which is in the nature of injunction, had been issued by the learned single Judge, we do not actually intend to interfere with the said order, delving into the merits of the case once again. 10. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Challa Sitaramaiah represented that Devasthanam is contemplating to file a civil suit seeking declaration of title in its favour, upon which, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Koka Ragha Rao, appearing for the writ petitioner, contended that the writ petitioner has been claiming ownership over the property consequent upon a judgment rendered by this court in another writ petition, much earlier to the present one i.e., W.P.No.23038/2002. Even this question, this court is not prepared to go into, in view of the fact that the respondent – Devasthanam expressed its view that a better remedy is available to it in a competent civil court and that it would seek redressal by filing a suit. 11. In view of the said submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal with liberty to the respondent – Devasthanam to file a civil suit before the competent civil court, having jurisdiction, seeking appropriate relief, inasmuch as, the law is settled that the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be ousted on the mere ground that a relief had been granted in a writ petition, not specifically touching upon the ownership and, therefore, it is always desirable for the aggrieved party to approach the competent civil court and file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title. 12. With the above observation and liberty, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. ----------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ------------------------------------ G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:16.12.2008 AVS