HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 27930 OF 2010. DATED 31st Januajry, 2011. BETWEEN Syed Sayeeduddin and anr …Petitioners And The Govt. of AP, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 27930 OF 2010 . ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in trying to acquire the property of the petitioners bearing MCH. Door Nos. 9.8.261/4 and 9.8.261/4, total admeasuring 600 sq.yards situate at Bada Bazar, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad, without initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings and without issuing prior notice as illegal and arbitrary It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner and his wife, who is the second petitioner herein, entered into an agreement of sale with Syed Hussain, Syed Ahmed and Syed Osman, in respect of the property bearing MCH Door Nos. 9-8.261/4 and 9-8-261/4/A, admeasuring 300 square yards each, situate at Bada Bazar, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad; that when the aforesaid persons (vendors of the petitioners) failed to execute the registered sale deed, the petitioners filed suit in O.S.No. 894 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the said suit was decreed on 26.2.2001 in favour of the petitioners and later the Court executed the sale deeds on behalf of the aforesaid vendors in favour of the petitioners; that petitioners have filed EP.Nos. 282 and 281 of 2001 for recovery of the possession, in which, respondents 4 and 5 have filed claim petitions in EA.No. 68 and 71 of 2003, which, after contest, were dismissed; and that pursuant to the orders of the civil Court, the bailiff handed over the possession of the subject property. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3, without issuing prior notice or initiating land acquisition proceedings, acquired the subject land of the petitioners and proceeded with construction. It is the case of the petitioners, in particular, that upon the instigation of respondents 4 and 5, respondents 2 and 3, purporting under wrong identification, took possession of the subject land and are proceeding with constructions. The petitioners also levelled several allegations against the local MLA and respondents 4 and 5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite making several complaints and representations, respondents 1 to 3 are not taking any action. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, stating that the land claimed by the petitioners is classified as Government land and the possession of the subject land is handed over to Rajiv Vidya Mission for construction of school building; and that as the land is in possession of the Government, the question of initiation of land acquisition proceedings does not arise. It is further stated that the land under dispute is co-related to T.S.No. 6, Blcok-A, Ward No.15 of Quila Mohammed Nagar Village, Golconda Mandal and the same is classified as Government Abadi land and that as these respondents are not parties to the suit proceedings in between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, the decree passed by the Civil Court is not binding on them. Respondents 4 and 5 filed counter affidavit, stating that their grand mother, Bali Bee was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land admeasuring 1000 square yards, having purchased the same under absolute sale deed dated 6.6.1992 and that said Bali Bee executed the gift deed dated 8.3.1973 in favour of respondents 4 and 5 in respect of the subject property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that the said property was assessed to property tax in the year 2001 and after bifurcation, new municipal door numbers were given. It is further stated that against the dismissal of claim petitions filed by respondents 4 and 5 vide E.A.No. 68 and 71 of 2003 in EP.Nos.282 and 283 of 2001, they (Respondents 4 and 5) filed appeals in A.S.Nos. 524 and 530 of 2007 and obtained stay of execution proceedings dated 16.11.2007 and 23.11.2007 and the said appeals are pending consideration on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed reply, wherein, at paragraph 4, it is stated as under: “ …I state that the respondents herein have admitted that as per the ground position the vacant land is admeasuring about 300 square yards and this peace of land is situated in between the premises No. 9-8-261/4 and 9-8-261/1 and at the same time the respondents No. 1 to 3 claims that the total extent of land in TS.No. 6 is 1631 sq. mets. and the same is classified as Government Abadi Land and recorded as vacant land. I respectfully state tht as alleged by me and the petitioner No.2 there is mistaken identify of property and the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have misdirected themselves and have entered upon the land admeasuring about 300 sq.yards which is covered under MCH.No. 9-8-261/4/A. Further, I state that the respondent No. 4 has instituted OS.No. 6563/2001 in respect of property bearing No. 9-8-261/1/A, admeasuring 500 sq. yards and one Sultan Mohiuddin has instituted OS.No. 1038 of 1984 in respect of open land admeasuring 563.50 sq. yards and both the suits were dismissed and the same are no way conce4rned with the property of the petitioner No.2 herein i.e. 9-8-261/4/A admeasuring 300 sq.yards.” Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side, and having gone through the case file, it is clear that all the parties to the writ petition are claiming right and title over the subject property. Several disputed questions of fact, as to right, title, extent, possession etc., in respect of the subject property would likely to arise and it is needless to observe that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not go into the same. It is left open for the parties, if so advised, to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 31st Januajry, 2011. Msnro