IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.2113 of 2000 Between: Allavarapu Suryanaryana Sastry, S/o Kameswara Sastry, Mutheswaram, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad. 2 The Collecter, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kakinada. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 The Mandal Parishad Developement Officer, Ainavalli Mandal, East Godavari District. .....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 or Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings by the 4th & 5th Respondents in R.C.No.A 9/2000 dt 20-1-2000 as illegal arbitrary and consequentially direct the Respondents 4th & 5th to restore the lane forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:G.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The writ petition is filed by a resident of Muktheswaram, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, challenging a memo, dated 20.01.2000 issued by the fifth respondent. According to the impugned memo, on the basis of an encroachment sketch prepared by the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Ainavilli, a portion of the land in Survey No.196 of Ainavilli Village is seen to have been encroached by the villagers; a Zilla Parishad land, adjacent to the Mandal Parishad Office and the property originally of the erstwhile District Board, is the property of the Mandal Parishad, Ainavilli. The Memo directs the Mandal Engineering Officer, Ainavilli to occupy the property and report the fact. According to the petitioner, who claims to be the owner of 80 cents of the land in Survey No.195/2B in Muktheswaram, Ainavilli Mandal, there was a small lane of 10 feet width connecting the main road, KNF, to his property, since long. In January, 2000, the respondents started closing the lane. The petitioner and the villagers objected to it, but no avail. Hence, the writ petition. The petitioner appears to claim an easementary right to the lane or other rights in opposition to the assumption underlying the impugned memo that the property in question is Mandal Parishad property. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner in the circumstances is to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for resolution of disputed questions of fact pertaining to title to immovable property. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 28th JANUARY, 2009. kvni