IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11942 of 2009 Between: Rishi Kashyap S/o.Jagadish Kashyap R/o.H.No.4-3-7/2, Opp:RDO office Vikarabad,R.R.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector,Lakdikapool, R.R.District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad R.R.District 3 The Tahsildar,Vikarabad Mandal, R.R.District 4 The Sub-Divisional Officer, The Forest Department Vikarabad, R.R.District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts known as Bilaldakla (Matruka) situated at Allampalli village, Vikarabad Mandal, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India as being illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. Alleging unlawful interference by the respondents with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac. 5.00 known as Bilaldakla (Matruka) situated at Allampalli village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the writ petition is filed. The petitioner claims to have inherited the property from his grand father, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed in 1964 and to have been in possession of the property since the time of the said purchase. In the writ petition, it is pleaded that when he was out of the area, the Watershed Department had constructed a tank in the land; in the 1st week of June 2009, the 4th respondent erected a board in the land claiming that the land is Government land and on 15.6.2009, it is alleged, the 3rd respondent visited the land and stated that the respondents are intending to make constructions on the land and the Hon’ble Minister would be the laying foundation stone therefor. The petitioner claims that the land is patta land and owned by him. From the pleadings in the affidavit, it would appear that the respondents assert that the property belongs to the Government while the petitioner asserts that the land is a patta land, purchased by his grand father in 1964 and therefore he is lawfully entitled to the property. These competing disputes as to title are more appropriately resolved before a civil court of competent jurisdiction either by way of a suit seeking injunctive relief or a declaratory relief. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 24.6.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 11942 of 2009. Dated: 24/6/2009.