THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1133 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioners claim to be the owners of property in premises bearing Nos.22-5-25 to 29, 43/A, 43/1 to 43/3, admeasuring 929.83 sq. yards at Charminar, Hyderbad. Their grievance is that the respondents are trying to interfere with their property, without initiating any proceedings, and contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The properties are said to have been purchased by their father, late Hazrath Syed Shah Shujauddin Quadri, under a registered sale deed dated 22-10-1973. According to them, the property is covered by structures, in which shops are being run, and that there is open land in front of the shops. Recently, the respondents have taken up the pedestrianization of Charminar area, and prepared a conservation plan for the historical structures, such as Madina building, Guljar house, and Charminar. The effort was to preserve and protect the Charminar and surrounding area. The existing C.C. road is being replaced with flooring of unfinished granite slabs, and to regulate the unauthorized vendors nearby the monument. The petitioners submit that the area in front of their shops is sought to be pedestrianized, without initiating any proceedings. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that no constructed area of the petitioners is sought to be taken over, and that the land in front of their shops, being run by the petitioners, is vested in the Corporation. It is also stated that the C.C. road was laid by the Corporation, long back, and steps are being taken only to replace the road with unfinished granite slabs. The petitioners filed a reply, denying the allegations of the respondents. Heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri Ratna Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. The petitioners do not allege that any portion of their property enclosed with any compound wall, or inside the structures, made by them; is sought to be taken over. Admittedly, the area in question is in front of the shops, that are being run by the petitioners. It is not uncommon that whenever shops are constructed within the Municipal Corporation, or any Municipality, the area in front of them vests with the Corporation, or the Municipality, as the case may be. It is a different matter, if shops are constructed inside any compound wall. The area now claimed by the petitioners is the one, between the existing road and their shops. The respondents go to the extent of stating that C.C road was already laid and steps are being taken, only to improve it under the scheme. When such is the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents, this Court cannot express any view. It is only when a properly framed suit is filed, that a Civil Court would be in a position to decide the ownership issue, depending upon the evidence, that the parties may adduce. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, it shall be open to the petitioners to file a suit, to establish the title over the land in question. It is directed that, any steps, that may be taken by the Municipal Corporation, in the meanwhile, shall be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners, that may be decided by the Civil Court, in the suit. There shall be no order as costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-02-2011. KO