IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 858 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/06/2009 in WP NO : 10832 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Gouru Venkata Subba Rededy S/o. Late G. Lakshma Reddy R/o. 204, Rama Sadan, Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar, A.P. Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., 3 The Superintendent Engineer A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Mahabubnagar , 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, Mahabubnagar District. 6 The Grampanchayt Sarpanch & Secretary, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 858 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal filed by the appellant-writ petitioner is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.6.2009 made in Writ Petition No. 10832 of 2009. The appellant is a real estate developer. According to him, he purchased the land in an extent of Acs. 2.11 situated in Survey No. 1582/A and Acs. 0.20 cents in Survey No.1583/A under a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney on 24.1.2003. He wanted to develop the property in question for the purpose of forming house plots. While so, appellant alleged that the 2nd respondent came to the appellant’s property, dug a bore well and erected an electric substation and is proceeding to make further constructions on the land in question on the ground that the property is Government property. Apprehending that the respondents may dispossess him from the land in question, the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking appropriate direction to the respondents not to dispossess him from the land in question. The learned single Judge, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, opined that since the appellant has been asserting title to the property in question and has also been seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his lawful ownership and possession of the property, the appellant has to work out his remedies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the availability of alternative remedies, the learned single Judge, dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned in this appeal while reserving liberty to the appellant to pursue his remedies before the Competent Civil Court. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. In view of the fact that the appellant is asserting title to the property in question and is also seeking injunctive relief restraining the respondents from interfering with his lawful ownership and possession of the property in question and in view of the fact that such disputes cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction, the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedies before the Civil Court of competent Jurisdiction. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned single Judge warranting interference. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 2nd July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb