The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.29214 of 2011 Date: 1st November, 2011 Between: J.R.Jakeer ..... Petitioner and 1.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Achary Street, Nellore and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5: Sri A.K.Narasimha Rao, SC for APTDC The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and persons claiming through them, in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the property situated in Survey No.1923 Part Nellore pertaining to Officers Club, Dargametta, Nellore 3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with respondent No.1 on 24-10-2007 inter alia for developing a swimming pool situated in the Officers Club, Dargametta, subject to various terms and conditions contained therein. The petitioner pleaded that he has invested huge amounts for effecting repairs and bringing the pool to useful condition. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.3 to 5, claiming that respondent No.1 has handed over possession of the site along with the pool to them, have been interfering with his possession. The petitioner claimed that the lease agreement is for a period of 15 years and that the same is still in force and that interference by respondent Nos.3 to 5 is illegal and arbitrary. In my opinion, the petitioner, who is claiming his rights under a non-statutory agreement, cannot invoke the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Clause 22 of the agreement provides for a grievance redressal mechanism, according to which, a Committee envisaged therein will entertain the dispute, if any, raised by either of the parties and if such Committee does not find an acceptable solution to the dispute within 30 days of reference, the same can be referred to a sole arbitrator, to be appointed in accordance with the procedure contained in the said clause. Inasmuch as respondent Nos.3 to 5 are claiming through respondent No.1, who is a party to the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the remedy referred to above. The petitioner shall also be free to avail any other common law remedy as is available to him in order to prevent respondent Nos.3 to 5 from causing undue interference. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.36162 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 1st November, 2011 LUR