IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 6075 of 2002 Between: J. Surender Reddy S/o Late J.Mallareddy R/o 1-9-32, Peddathokatta Village, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Hyderabad District Hyderabad. 2 The MRO, Trimulgherry, Office at Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 3 The Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Secunderabad, CCC Compound, Secunderabad. ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in attempting to demolish the building of the Petitioner in Sy.Nos.53 and 55, adm.408 Sq.Yds., in Jayanagar, Pedda Thokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary, and without due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in attempting to demolish the building of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The respondents opposed the writ petition by contending that the property in dispute is vested with the Cantonment Board and notice was issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and if there is any grievance to the petitioner, he has to approach the authority concerned for adjudication of the matter and since there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the property, the writ Court is not supposed to entertain the writ and grant any relief to the petitioner. It is an undisputed fact that there are rival claims between the parties regarding the disputed land. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property whereas the respondents contend that the land is a public premises. Both the parties say that there are good number of documents in support of their respective contentions. In the light of the above circumstances, it is desirable that an adjudication has to be made, after recording oral and documentary evidence, by the authority concerned and give a well-considered order touching upon the merits of the case in respect of the rights of the respective parties. Therefore, I wish to direct the authority concerned to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. The Estate Officer is directed to consider the documents filed by both the parties, record oral evidence, if any, and after considering the entire material pass appropriate orders, according to law. It is needless to mention that the respondents should not take any steps to demolish the construction, if any, made by the petitioner till the disposal of the matter by the Estate Officer. No order as to costs. _________________ 26th February, 2008 SKM ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Collector, Hyderabad District Hyderabad. 2 The MRO, Trimulgherry, Office at Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 3 The Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Secunderabad, CCC Compound, Secunderaba 4 2 CCs to G.P. for Revenue 5 2 CD copies