THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7073 of 2006 ORDER: The order, under challenge in this writ petition, is the memo issued by the Collector, Hyderabad dated 29.03.2006 seeking to regularize lands in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 10 herein. The petitioners, three in number, claim to have purchased different extents of land from Sri K.B. Lal who, they contend, is the owner of the land. It is their case that they had earlier filed W.P. No.27755 of 1998 to declare the lay-out approval granted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, in favour of Harinagar Co- operative Housing Society Ltd, as illegal as their plots did not come within the said lay-out; this Court, by order dated 03.02.1999, had appointed an Advocate Commissioner who submitted his report to the Court and, thereafter, this Court, by order dated 10.03.1999, had allowed the Writ Petition holding that the lay-out sanctioned in favour of Harinagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., was illegal, and had directed the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to reconsider the issue. According to the petitioners, the Commissioner, MCH had called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer who stated that no pattas were granted in the plots claimed by the petitioner, and it was a private land; and thereafter the Commissioner, by order dated 16.07.2001, had cancelled the lay-out approval granted in favour of Harinagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., wherein the petitioners’ plot was included. The Petitioners would submit that they had been given land user certificate by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority on 04.09.2001 stating that the plots were private lands located in a residential zone. They would also refer to the proceedings of the Municipal Commissioner wherein a part of one of the petitioner’s land was sought to be taken over for road widening. The petitioners would contend that, since the land belongs to them and not to the Government, the District Collector had exceeded his jurisdiction in regularizing the said land in favour of respondents 7 to 10 holding that they were encroachers who were in possession of the land. Sri V. Hariharan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer discloses that the land in question is a private land and does not belong to Government, the Government could not have regularized the encroachment as the power of regularization is available to the Government only in relation to its lands, and not private lands belonging to the petitioners; the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, placed before the Municipal Commissioner, Hyderabad, would disclose that the lands were not Government lands, in which event the impugned memos were clearly in excess of jurisdiction; and accepting the contention of respondents 7 to 10 that they were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates would mean that they are the owners of the land in which event the Government cannot be the owner of the land, and thereby would not have jurisdiction to regularize the encroachments thereupon. On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that the order in W.P. No.27755 of 1998 does not bind the Government in as much as the Government is not a party to the said proceedings; the TSLR records reveal that these lands belong to the Government; and as such the Government was justified in regularizing the encroachments thereupon. Sri K. Anoop Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 7 to 10, would submit that the petitioners herein had earlier filed a petition, before the Land Grabbing Court against respondents 7 to 10, alleging that they were land grabbers; the said O.P. was dismissed; suppressing this fact the present writ petition is filed; the petitioners have been in possession of the lands for the past several decades; and, since the land does not belong to the petitioners, the Government was justified in issuing the impugned memo regualarising the encroachments of respondents 7 to 10 on government lands. In the guise of seeking its decision whether or not the District Collector has exceeded his jurisdiction, in regularizing the encroachments, this Court is being called upon to determine disputed questions of title. While the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend the land belongs to the petitioners and not to the Government and, therefore, the Government had exceeded its jurisdiction in regularizing the encroachments thereupon; both the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K. Anoop kumar would contend to the contrary. While the Learned Government Pleader would submit that the land is Government land, it is the case of respondents 7 to 10, in their counter- affidavit, that by virtue of the occupancy rights granted in their favour, they have become owners of the land and, in any event, the petitioners are not the owners of the land. The proper forum for adjudication of disputed questions of title is the competent Civil Court. Ordinarily, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not take upon itself the task of declaring the title of a person over a particular piece of land, nor would it determine these disputed questions one way or the other. The impugned G.O. is based on the premise that the land belongs to the Government. Whether the title over this piece of land vests with the petitioner or in the Government or with respondents 7 to 10 are all matters which this Court would not, ordinarily, determine in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The assertion by the petitioner of their title over the land, and to be in possession thereof, would only enable them to seek an injunction from a competent Civil Court, and not to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the submission of the Learned Counsel that it is the impugned G.O. which is under challenge, and the petitioners do not seek declaration of their title, may seem attractive at first blush, it cannot be lost sight of that the entire premise on which the said G.O. is based on is that the Government is the owner of the land and, since the petitioners dispute this fact, their remedy is only to approach the competent Civil Court and seek a declaratory relief that they have title over the land in question. Leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 21.10.2010 MRKR