IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11530 of 2009 Between: 1 C.Basi Reddy S/o Chinna Narayana Reddy Hindu R/o. Eashwar Reddy Nagar Street Proddatur Kadapa District 2 P.Venkata Rama Krishnaiah S/o.Chinnaiah,Hindu Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 3 D.P Dynamma W/o.Joseph Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 4 G.Sabeerunnisa W/o. Akbal Basha Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 5 Venkata Ramanamma W/o. Raja Reddy 5/314 Vijayanagaram Street,Proddatur Kadapa District 6 V.Sathyanarayana S/o.Venkataiah Hindu R/o. Eashwar Reddy Nagar Street Proddatur Kadapa District 7 B.Peter S/o. Erromil Hindu Kanagudur(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 8 C.Balappa S/o. Subbarayulu Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 9 B.Venkata Lakshmamma W/o.Venkateswarlu Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 10 B.Ramu Obul Reddy S/o.Pedda Nagi Reddy Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 11 C.Chinna Reddy S/o.Pedda Nagi Reddy Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 12 S.Daveelu S/o. Yesuraju Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 13 C.Peddi Raju S/o.Ramaiah Korapadu(V) Muddanuru(M) Kadapa District 14 A.Obul Reddy S/o. Ranga Reddy Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 15 Chinna Gurrappa S/o. Moranna Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 16 C.Peddi Reddy S/o. C.China Narayana Reddy Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District 17 Pedda Guruvaiah S/o.Vesudevulu R/o. Eashwar Reddy Nagar Street Proddatur Kadapa District 18 P.Subhash S/o. Kasim Penna Nagar Street,Proddatur Kadapa District 19 A.Amuruthamma W/o.Prasad Rao Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur Kadapa District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation rep.by its Chief Executive 5-9-194 Chirag Ali Lane Abids Hyderabad 2 Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation rep.by its Senior Branch Manager 7/605 Jayanagar,Colony,R.T.C Bus Stand Kadapa District 3 Duvvuru Mohammed Ghouse @ Munna S/o Late Kader Khan D.No.12/27 Khaderhussain Mosque Street Proddatur Town,Kadapa District .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in aiding and instigating respondent No.3 in attempting to occupy the houses and the compounded plots of the petitioners purchased through registered Sale Deed in SY no.542/1 of Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur(M) Kadapa District beyond the boundaries shown in the sale Deed executed by 2nd respondent in favour of 3rd respondent dt 01-02-2008 bearing Doct No.570/2008 for extraneous consideration and without following any procedure and collusively extraneous consideration and against statutory provision high handed extraneous and discriminative and consequently direct the respondent to occupy the houses and compounded plots of the petitioners purchased through registered Sale Deed in SY No.542/1 of Rameshwaram(V) Proddatur(M) Kadapa District by misinterpreting the contents of the Sale Deed bearing Doct No.570/2008 dt 01-02-2008 and beyond the boundaries and extents shown in the document and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11530 of 2009 ORDER : Petitioners herein claim to have purchased small extents of house sites situated in Sy.No.542/1 of Rameshwaram village, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District under registered sale deeds from one Y.Rami Reddy, who got title by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 10-11-1988 executed by the A.P. State Financial Corporation. It is stated that the first respondent-Corporation sold another extent admeasuring Acs.1.86 cents of land situated in Sy.No.542/1 to the third respondent in public auction on 01-02-2008. Thereafter the third respondent started interfering with the plots of the petitioners at the instigation of the first and second respondents for extraneous reasons. Aggrieved by the alleged interference, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in aiding and instigating the third respondent in attempting to occupy the houses of the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal. It is also alleged that the third respondent is attempting to include the plots of the petitioners in the land purchased by him under the sale deed dated 01-02-2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. It is apparent that the whole dispute is between the petitioners and the third respondent with regard to the rights acquired by them in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.542/1. On the face of it, the matter does not involve enforcement of any statutory obligation on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 and it is clear that the dispute relates to property rights between private persons. Hence, it is not open to the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If aggrieved, it is for the petitioners to work out the appropriate common law remedy as available under law for redressal of their grievance. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 23–06-2009 Note: Issue C.C. in five days. B/o KLP