IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14942 of 2010 Between: Mulaparthi Varahala Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Tahasildar, I. Polavaram, East Godavari District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. G. Lakshmi for Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri M. Prabhakar Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14942 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 11.02.2010 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner claims to be the owner of four coconut trees situated on his patta land. According to him, the said trees were removed while laying a gravel road. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 with a representation for payment of compensation for removal of the said trees. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 rejected the said representation by observing that the report received from the Panchayat Secretary, Gogulanka revealed that the villagers have themselves removed the trees on their own for the purpose of laying of road, which is beneficial to the community at large. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that respondent No.1 in his report dated 23.11.2009 has stated that it is the Gram Panchayat, which has removed the trees and therefore it is liable to pay compensation for the value of the trees. A perusal of the said report shows that respondent No.1 has addressed the same to respondent No.2, wherein he has opined that four coconut trees and one palmyra tree belonging to the petitioner were removed without his permission and that to preserve peace in the village and prevent disputes among the two groups, it is appropriate for respondent No.2 to settle the issue. As noted above, respondent No.2, having taken the initiative, has examined the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same on the basis of the report of the Panchayat Secretary of Gogulanka Gram Panchayat. Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing counsel representing respondent No.2, submitted that neither the Mandal Parishad nor the Gram Panchayat concerned have removed the trees and that therefore they are not liable to pay the compensation. In my opinion, the issue raised in the writ petition falls in the realm of disputed question of fact. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate such a dispute in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is therefore relegated to the common law remedy of a civil suit before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for claiming compensation. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.18831 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.09.2010 ES