The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.20476 of 2006 Dated 26th August, 2010 Between: K.Mallaiah …Petitioner And The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.H.Basanth Kumar for Mr.Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of land, admeasuring Ac.1-34 cents in Survey No.512 of Pochampally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with his enjoyment of the said land. I have heard Sri H.Basanth Kumar, learned Counsel representing Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, representing respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Perused the record. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the abovesaid land. He averred that out of the said extent of land, the respondents were attempting to construct a water tank over an extent of 565 square yards; that resisting the said attempt, he got issued notice, dated 21-10-2005; that on receipt of the said notice, the respondents have stopped the work for some time and that thereafter, they have resumed the work. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the Gram Panchayat has prepared a scheme for supply of protected drinking water; that the Committee constituted by the Mandal Development Officer has undertaken the work of construction of Over Head Storage Reservoir (OHSR) for providing drinking water to Bhoodan Pochampally Village situated on the outskirts of the Hyderabad City; that an extent of 464 square yards in Survey Nos.512/A and 512/4 was identified for the said purpose; that two persons by name E.Janga Reddy and E.Yadireddy donated an extent of 240 square yards and that the said land was conveyed under a gift deed. It is further averred that the petitioner has given his oral consent for construction of OHSR over the balance extent of 224 square yards, which belongs to him; that with the said consent, work was started and completed in the month of May, 2006; that the elections were held for the local bodies in the month of August, 2006, and that the new body, which has assumed office, has completed the remaining formalities of releasing the drinking water to the village. It is pleaded that having gifted the property by giving oral consent, the petitioner has turned around and filed the present Writ Petition. No reply-affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the above counter-affidavit. The rival pleadings referred to above would disclose that while the petitioner’s ownership is not denied, the respondents have come out with the plea that with the oral gift given by the petitioner, the overhead tank was constructed over an extent of 464 square yards, out of which 224 square yards belongs to the petitioner. Though the petitioner has failed to controvert the above-mentioned plea of the respondents, even if he disputes the correctness of the said plea, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate on this disputed fact. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief to the extent of 224 square yards of land. As regards the balance extent of land out of 565 square yards claimed by the petitioner, as respondent No.2 has specifically stated that only an extent of 224 square yards belonging to the petitioner was utilised for construction of OHSR, the petitioner shall be free to utilise the same. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 26th August, 2010 lur