HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.9346 of 2002 DATED:20.04.2010 Between: Reddy Sreenu and others. .. Petitioner And The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Kothagudem and others. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.9346 of 2002 ORDER : Alleging threat of dispossession in respect of certain lands which the petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors and on such claim, seeking forbearance of the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective lands, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioners in their affidavit state that they are the residents of Penuballi village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. They claim that they inherited certain enumerated lands from their forefathers who were the original pattedars and by virtue of which they claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands. There was a proposal to acquire the lands for the purpose of the 1st respondent company, but the same did not fructify. Although they are the owners, and in possession of their respective lands, the petitioners allege that on 10-05-2002, the 2nd respondent visited the lands and threatened to dispossess them. The petitioners allege that the respondents have no right, title or interest over the lands, and therefore, they have no authority of law to disturb their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands. 3. The 1st respondent company denies and asserts that the petitioners are neither the owners nor are they in possession of the lands which they claim to be. It is asserted that the proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) and after following due process under the Act, the company acquired the lands in the year 1964. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette, dated 01-06-1961 followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act published in the gazette dated 26-06-1961 to acquire the lands for the purpose of the company which include the lands in respect of which the petitioners have set up claim. It is also asserted that advance possession was taken under the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act by dispensing with the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act there of. Subsequent thereto, award was passed on 30-12-1964, and the award was preceded by the procedure required under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. The 1st respondent, therefore, asserts that the petitioners are neither the owners nor they are in possession of the lands. 4. The 4th respondent also asserts that the lands were acquired and consequent thereupon the 1st respondent company was incorporated as pattedar in the revenue pahani of 1965-66 and noted as the possessor of the land therein. 5. In the light of the assertions made by the respondents, the petitioners, in order to be entitled to the relief in the writ petition, should demonstrate and impeach the claim of the respondents. They should further establish that they are faced with threat of dispossession. The petitioners, however, have not placed any material relevant to hold that they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands. They have not even traversed assertions made by respondents in their respective counter affidavits. In view of the conflicting claims and disputed questions of facts, the ownership of the lands and the possession thereof, which are required to be resolved in a common law remedy cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The petitioners since failed to demonstrate indisputable possession of the respective lands and in view of the factual dispute as asserted by the respondents, it cannot be positively held that the petitioners are in possession of the lands. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. 6. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 20th April, 2010 kvr