THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2515 of 2007 Date: 08.12.2010 Between : Sri M. Ravinder .… Petitioner and The Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District, O/o. District Collector, Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2515 of 2007 ORDER : The petitioner, claiming to be the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 1400 square yards and 294 square yards in Sy.No.524 of Kodad Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, has filed this writ petition alleging that the official respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are making attempts to lay a passage through the said land without any authority of law, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner claims that he purchased the aforesaid land under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1522/2006 and 1620/2006, respectively, dated 1.4.2006, from the original owners, namely Shaik Budan and Shaik Dastagiri through their General Power of Attorney holder Sri Linga Jaya Reddy. Since there was a dispute about the existence of boundary stones in respect of the said land, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21438 of 2006 and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in the said writ petition, a survey was conducted on 28.12.2006 to fix the boundaries of the said land. During the course of survey, it was noticed that there were some constructions in the said land and the boundary stones in respect of the said land do not exist. 3. While so, it appears that respondent Nos.1 to 4 proposed to lay an approach road connecting the office of the Tahsildar to National Highway No.9. The grievance of the petitioner is that as the official respondents proposed to lay road through his land, he, being the owner of the said land, should have been given a notice and opportunity and without following due process of law, the authorities cannot dispossess him from the land in question. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are impleaded pursuant to the orders in W.P.M.P.No.11827 of 2007, dated 08.12.2010, on the other hand, contended that they are the rightful owners and possessors of the subject land. According to respondent Nos.5 and 6, their father purchased an extent of 774 square yards of land in Sy.No.524 under a registered sale deed, dated 7.11.2002, bearing document No.4342/2002. Similarly, their sister, namely Smt. Kakumanu Laxmi, also acquired 1500 square yards of land in the same survey number through registered gift deeds, dated 30.3.1999, bearing document Nos.781/98 and 803/98, and after the death of their father, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have succeeded to the subject land. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 contend that the petitioner has nothing to do with the subject land. It is also contended that respondent Nos.5 and 6 also filed a suit in O.S.No.190 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, against the petitioner and another seeking the relief of injunction in respect of the subject land and that the rights of the parties, including the petitioner and the impleaded respondents, have to be decided in the said suit. Therefore, any orders passed in the present writ petition would affect the interests of the parties in the said suit. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed suit O.S.No.190 of 2009 in which the petitioner is also one of the defendants. Therefore, the rights of the parties, if any, would have to be gone into by the civil Court, after adducing necessary evidence in the said suit. Since, it is not possible to record a finding that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehended that respondent Nos.1 to 4 may try to interfere with the alleged possession of the petitioner over the subject land. If that be so, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such legal remedies as are available under law by instituting appropriate proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 4. 9. It is made clear that the observations made in this writ petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of the suit. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 08.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2515 of 2007 08.12.2010 (Msr)