THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17908 of 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ property, admeasuring Acs.50.00 i.e. Acs.15.00 and Acs.35.00 in Sy.Nos.334/AA and 334/E respectively, at Nadipally Village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District, without following the procedure established by the law as illegal and unconstitutional. For the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, it is wholly unnecessary to narrate all the events mentioned in the affidavit. Suffice to note that the petitioners’ claim that they had purchased Acs.50.00 of land by registered sale deeds in the years 2006- 2007; the aforesaid extent of Acs.50.00 of land was originally purchased, in an auction conducted by the government, by Sri Rajender and late Sri Vishwanatham; while there is a mango orchard in Acs.5.00 of land, an extent of Acs.9.00 of land has been plotted; ever since 1958 the pahanies show either the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, or the petitioners, to be the owners of the land; and even in the pahanies, for the year 2010-11, the petitioners’ were shown to be the owners and to be in possession of the land in question. The petitioners’ grievance is that, while an extent of Acs.168.00 of land in Sy.No.334 had been allotted to the fifth respondent (Telangana University) by the Government, attempts were being made to encroach upon their land of an extent of Acs.50.00 without any authority of law; and, except by way of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State cannot deprive them of their property. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad District, it is stated that the total extent of land in Sy.No.334 was Acs.238.00 out of which an extent of Acs.168.00 of land was proposed for alienation in favour of fifth respondent; as on the date of the proposed alienation, the land in Sy.No.334 was shown to be government P.P. land in the revenue records; and the proposed alienation was, therefore, not illegal. While a reference is made, in the counter affidavit, to certain copies of the old records being filed by the petitioners in support of their claim of Acs.50.00 of government land having been purchased in an auction by their predecessors- in-title, the third respondent asserts that records produced do not clearly show which portion, and under which boundaries, in Sy.No.334 was this extent of Acs.50.00, said to have been purchased in an auction conducted under the Laoni Rules, 1950 located; there was no sub-division record with the petitioners; and, at no point of time, the petitioners were in possession of the subject land. That the petitioners were issued pattedar pass books, for an extent of Acs.50.00 of land by the then Tahsildar, Dichpally, in his proceedings dated 04.04.2007, is admitted. Reference is made to the report submitted by the Tahsildar, prior to the alienation proposals in favour of fifth respondent, wherein it is stated that the entire extent of the land in the said survey number was fallow and vacant on the spot; the land in the said survey number, as per basic revenue records i.e. sethwar and khasra pahanies, of an extent of Acs.168.00 was proposed for alienation; the genuineness of the request of the petitioners’, that they had purchased Acs.50.00 of land from the persons who had purchased in an auction conducted by the government in the year 1958, was still under verification; the Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records), Nizamabad had been requested to locate Acs.50.00 of land in Sy.No.334; and the matter was under process. While Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would assert that the averments in the counter affidavit, coupled with the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the District Collector on 09.08.2010, would show that Acs.50.00 of land in the said survey number was owned by, and was in the possession of, the petitioners; Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) would dispute this and contend that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.334 was shown as government land in the revenue records out of which an extent of Acs.168.00 was allotted in favour of fifth respondent; in any event the entire land was vacant, and the petitioners were not in possession of the land; the genuineness of the contention of the petitioners that they had purchased Acs.50.00 from persons who had purchased in an auction conducted by the government in the year 1958, was still under verification; the Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records), Nizamabad had been requested to locate Acs.50.00 of land in Sy.No.334; and the matter was under process. Disputed questions of title, or disputes as to who is in possession, would not, ordinarily, be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since such questions are better adjudicated after full-fledged trial by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It is only if there is no dispute with regards the petitioners’ ownership of the land in question can there be a direction that they cannot be deprived of their property except in accordance with law, i.e. by acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. In this case while the respondents do not specifically deny the title of Sri Rajender and late Sri Vishwanatham over an extent of Acs.50.00 of land, they would, however, assert that the entire extent of land was vacant, and the petitioners’ claim to be the owners of the said land was still under examination. Merely on the basis of affidavits, this Court would not be in a position to conclusively determine whether or not the petitioners are owners of the land. While this Court was initially inclined to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of a civil suit, in view of the specific statement in the counter affidavit that the petitioners’ request, of having purchased Acs.50.00 from their predecessors-in-title who had purchased in an auction conducted by the government, was under verification, and the Assistant Director (Survey and Land Records), Nizamabad had been requested to locate Acs.50.00 of land in Sy.No.334, it is left open to the petitioners to approach the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievances. Without expressing any opinion, with regards their title or their possession over the land in question, the petitioners are permitted to approach the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievances in the light of the specific assertion of the third respondent in his counter affidavit that the matter is under examination. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:17.08.2011 usd