THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.936 OF 2011 DATED:15.11.2011 Between: P. Karunakar and another … Appellant And The Joint Collector Visakhapatnam and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.936 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The writ appeal is directed against order dt.20.9.2011 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No.5020 of 2008. 2. The appellant claims to be in possession and enjoyment of land situated in Sy.No.331/5 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. He contends that he is being illegally evicted from that land. 3. It is alleged that the land was originally allotted to one Mr. V. Laxmana Rao, who was a freedom fighter. The said Mr. V. Laxman Rao executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Mr. M. Ramakrishna on 27.1.1989, but since a regular sale deed was not executed, Mr. M. Ramakrishna filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement which was decreed. Thereafter, Mr. M. Ramakrishna filed an execution petition and that is how he came into actual and physical possession of the land in question. 4. According to the appellant, Mr. Ramakrishna then sold the land to him sometime in the year 2007 and since then he is in peaceful possession and occupation of the land. 5. It is alleged that the respondents are taking steps to evict the appellant from his peaceful possession of the land without following the procedure laid down by law. 6. On these facts, a writ petition was filed but that was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that there were disputed questions of fact, including the assignment of land in favour of Mr. V. Laxmana Rao. This was on the basis of the averments by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge that the alleged assignment in favour of Mr. V. Laxmana Rao was not a genuine one and in fact no assignment was made. 7. The learned single Judge declined to interfere also on the ground that the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to file a civil suit for appropriate relief. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and we see no reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned single Judge. 9. There is no doubt that disputed questions of fact arise including the assignment of land in favour of Mr. V. Lakshmana Rao from whom the appellant claims title through Mr. M. Ramakrishna. Obviously, the Writ Court cannot adjudicate these disputed questions of fact. 10. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge but leave it open to the appellant to approach a civil Court, if so advised. 11. Dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 15-11-2011 bnr