IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3985 of 2003 Between: Miss B.Menaka D/o.B.Raja Reddy R/o.Urandur Village, Sri Kalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The District Collector Chittoor. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3985 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the tender notiﬁcation dated 12-02-2003 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. In her aﬃdavit, the petitioner pleaded that her father obtained ryotwari patta from the Assistant Settlement Oﬃcer in respect of Ac.251.50 cents of land in Sy.No.1 of Mangalam Village, Chittoor District and that he settled an extent of Ac.5.00 out of the said property in favour of the petitioner in the year 1995. The present writ petition is ﬁled assailing the action of respondent No.1 in calling for tenders for laying a pipeline through the land over which the petitioner claimed her rights and also to provide house sites for eligible persons who are residing at Tirumala. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, the claim of the petitioner that ryotwari patta was granted in favour of her father is denied. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.6542 of 1983, questioning the proceedings of the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri, granting this land in favour of the A.P. Housing Board. This Court dismissed the said writ petition on 14-12- 1987 on the ground of enormous delay. It is further stated that the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement, Hyderabad, by his order dated 15-10-1999 in R.P.No.93 of 1987 set aside the order of the Settlement Oﬃcer dated 26-05-1986 and remanded the case of the petitioner to the Joint Collector and Settlement Oﬃcer, Chittoor, with a direction to examine the case with reference to the Estate records and dispose of the same according to law after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned. The answering respondent also referred to O.S.No.164 of 1992 ﬁled by the petitioner’s father and eight others in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Thirupathi, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Government from dispossessing them from the lands in question wherein the Government ﬁled a written statement taking the stand that the Saswatha patta dated 15-03-1943 under which the plaintiﬀ No.1 set up a title was a fabricated document and that plaintiﬀ No.1 was never in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further stated that while plaintiﬀs 2 to 9 withdrew the suit, the civil Court gave a ﬁnding that there is no evidence to show that the schedule property was cultivated by plaintiﬀ No.1 at any point of time and that he has not produced any document to show that he was in possession of the same. It is also stated that the civil Court gave a ﬁnding that the documents produced by plaintiﬀ No.1 were doubtful as there was no proper certiﬁcation thereof and the suit was dismissed on 30-12-1998. The questions whether title over the property in question vested in the father of the petitioner, and on account of the purported settlement made by his father, the same passed on to the petitioner are required to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. When the petitioner’s claim for title is seriously disputed by the respondents and in the light of the fact that her father was all through unsuccessful in getting his right declared, it is not possible for this Court to interdict the respondents from utilizing the said property which is claimed to be belonging to the Government for public purposes. The writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court to get her title declared over the property in question. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt:20-10-2008 usd