IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.15039 and 15052 of 2010 WP.No.15039 of 2010: BETWEEN K. Srinivasa Rao. ... PETITIONER AND The Tobacco Board, Guntur and another. ...RESPONDENTS WP.No.15052 of 2010: BETWEEN K. Gopala Rao. ... PETITIONER AND The Tobacco Board, Guntur and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. CH. RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: MR. J.V. PRASAD MR. RAMA RAO GHANTA The Court made the following order: COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in these two writ petitions question the inaction of the first respondent – Tobacco Board, in not passing appropriate orders on the applications of the respective petitioners for registration as growers for the tobacco barn, which is subject matter of each of the writ petition. 2. The subject matter of both the writ petitions relate to tobacco barn bearing Registration Nos.TB-17-733-003 and TB-17-733-003 respectively. From the facts, it appears that both the barns were registered in the name of one Gopalasetty Venkata Ramana for the year 2008-09. The petitioners herein claim that they have purchased one barn each from the said Venkata Ramana on 19.11.2009 and have thereafter made application for registration as grower and since no orders were being passed, the present writ petitions are filed by each of the said purchasers. 3. Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, who has filed implead petitions being WPMP.No.21892 of 2010 and WPMP.No.21891 of 2010 respectively for impleadment of one Smt. P. Uma Devi in both the writ petitions, has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. Since I have heard the learned counsel for the proposed party as well and since the aforesaid applications are not opposed, the same are ordered. 4. The respondent board filed a counter wherein it is stated that after the receipt of applications of the petitioners for registration as growers for the year 2009-10, the board also received an application from the impleaded respondent herein Smt. Polu Uma Devi seeking registration as grower for the very same two barns for which the petitioners have made applications. The board, therefore, found that rival claims are being made by the petitioners on the one hand and the said P. Uma Devi on the other and both of them claim to have purchased the barns from the said Gopalasetty Venkata Ramana. The board, therefore, could not pass orders on the said applications in view of the title dispute pending between both the said claimants. Para 8 of the counter affidavit of the board is also relevant to be noticed, which records that the applications of the petitioners for registration were pending and could not be disposed of on account of rival claim made by the impleaded respondent, which is required to be settled by both the parties in a competent Court. 5. After hearing all the learned counsel, I am of the view that the claim made by the impleaded respondent against the claims of the petitioners herein cannot be adjudicated by the Tobacco Board, as it requires investigating into the title and ascertainment as to who has a better title among the rival parties and the same can only be adjudicated by a competent civil Court. In view of that, declining any Mandamus as prayed for, the petitioners in each of the writ petitions as well as the impleaded respondent and their claim against each other are left open to be adjudicated before an appropriate civil Court, if parties are so advised. Subject to the above, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 23, 2011 DSK