IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 23727 of 1999 Between: G.F. Jesudoss S/o late V.D.Jesudoss R/o H.No.6-2-78, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad-03 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Estate Officer cum Joint Collector Hyderabad District Collectorate Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad 2 Chief Commissioner, Land administration Govt. of A.P. Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad 3 Miss.F.Joseph D/o late A.M. Joseph R/o H.No.6-2-82/83, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad 4 Sub Registrar Kavadiguda, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the conveyance deed dt: 23-10-1999 registered by the 1st respondent herein and modification/substitution contained in the said conveyance deed viz., CCLS's Proceedings No.BBL1/219/99 dt: 18-9-99 as arbitrary, illegal, inoperative and consequently quash the same Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the conveyance deed, dated 23.10.1999, registered by the Estate Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Hyderabad, the first respondent, with modification/substitution contained in the said conveyance deed vide proceedings of CCLA in file No.BBL1/219/99, dated 18.09.1999, as arbitrary and illegal. The facts are not much in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that his maternal grand father purchased an extent of 125 square yards of vacant land by way of a registered sale deed, dated 28.04.1924. Subsequently, on his demise, his son, by name Harry Roach, sold an extent of 53.33 square yards of land in favour of the petitioner, through a registered sale deed, dated 11.03.1992. There was an old dilapidated tiled house in the said piece of land with Municipal No.6-2-68 situated at New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner approached the Municipal Corporation for affecting mutation in the records. He had applied for water connection on 14.12.1995 and the same was sanctioned. The Municipal Corporation accorded sanction under permit No.11/33(95), dated 26.12.1995, for construction of a residential portion in the said piece of land. At that stage, the petitioner noticed that the unofficial respondent along with others has been claiming rights in respect of the very same property. As such, he filed O.S.No.1083 of 1996 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the said Court granted injunction against the third respondent herein and others from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent ordered conversion of leasehold property to freehold property without verifying the fact that the Government has no right at all on the said land. No survey number was mentioned in that transfer deed. When the petitioner approached the office of the second respondent and made a representation for issuance of a copy of proceedings, dated 18.09.1999, the same was not issued. Further, basing on the said proceedings, dated 18.09.1999, the first respondent has registered a conveyance deed, dated 23.10.1999 in favour of the third respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the land under a registered sale deed and that could not have been conveyed to the third respondent by the first respondent. The land in question is purely a private land and it is not a Government land and respondents 1 and 2 without verifying the said fact have registered the same. Therefore, the same is arbitrary and illegal. From the above, it is clear that there is a dispute as to the title of the land in question. It is the complaint of the petitioner that his land is sought to be registered in favour of the third respondent by the first respondent without there being any title in favour of the Government. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this lis cannot be decided in a writ petition like this, since the title needs to be decided by a competent civil Court after adducing evidence by both the parties, but not in these proceedings. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from working out his remedies by way of filing a suit or other proceedings as available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.06.2009 kdl