IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16529 of 2000 Between: K. Satyanarayana … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents: None This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16529 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in dispossessing the petitioner from his land admeasuring 480 square yards in Sy.No.1 bearing Plot Nos.21, 69, 70 and 190 of Madapur Weaker Section Society, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District and demolishing his residential building bearing No.1-98/11/1 constructed on the said plots, without following due process of law, as illegal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the parties. Perused the record. In his affidavit the petitioner inter alia averred that respondent No.2 allotted plot bearing No.21 in Sy.No.1 admeasuring 120 square yards to him on 02.10.1981 after receiving half the price of the land and that he erected a hut thereon. In the year 1987 he applied for permission to the Grampanchayat, Madhapur to construct a building with asbestos roof, that permission was granted by the Grampanchayat on 10.02.1987 and that accordingly he constructed a building by spending Rs.75,000/-. The petitioner further averred that Sri Goundla Bikshapathi, Sri K.Shankaraiah and Sri Dasu were also allotted 120 square yards of land each during the years 1981-86 and that they also erected huts on those lands. The petitioner claimed that during the year 1997 he purchased the said lands admeasuring 360 square yards from the said persons for a total consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He alleged that on 21.05.2000, respondent No.4 accompanied by his subordinates came to the said premises and forcibly dispossessed him from the building. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, it is averred that Sy.No.1 of Madhapur village admeasuring Ac.33.01 guntas is classified as Sarkari Poramboku, that in the year 1981 the then Tahsildar, Rajendranagar has issued house site pattas to the weaker section people and adjacent to the said land there is a graveyard and that the total extent of land for which pattas were granted including the graveyard was Ac.7.00 guntas. He further averred that the petitioner, in the guise of enjoying his land over which patta was granted to him, tried to encroach the land in Sy.No.1 of Madhapur village admeasuring 600 square yards opposite to the housing colony, which is separated by a road. While denying that he demolished the petitioner’s building bearing No.1-98/11/1, he stated that he had merely protected the abovementioned Government land of 600 square yards from being encroached by the petitioner. He stated that he has not interfered with the petitioner’s possession of plot Nos.21, 69, 70 and 190 and that he merely prevented him from occupying the Government land opposite to the housing colony in the guise of the petitioner being in possession of the said plots. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, he reiterated his averments that the respondents dispossessed him from plot bearing Nos.21, 69, 70 and 190 and demolished his residential building bearing No.1-98/11/1. The issues whether the respondents interfered with the petitioner’s possession of the lands for which pattas were granted or they have merely protected the Government land of 600 square yards from encroachment and whether they have demolished the residential building bearing No.1-98/11/1 are the disputed questions of fact. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into such disputed facts. It is only in a properly constituted civil suit that it will be possible for the civil Court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate such questions after considering the evidence both oral and documentary to be produced by both the parties. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.21021 of 2000 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.07.2008 ES