IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10081 of 2009 Between: Md. Moin-Uz-Zaman S/o. Late Md. Khaleel-Uz-Zaman R/o. H.No. 41-1/1, Moula Ali R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 General Manager South Central Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division Hyderabad Bhavan, South Central Railway Secunderabad. 3 Divisional Engineer(Works) , Hyderabad Division DRM Compound, South Central Railway Secunderabad. Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 4 Section Engineer (Works) & IOW South Central Railway Moula-Ali, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ Order or Direction particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Impugned Acts of Respondents of commencing the work of Raising the compound wall around the scheduled property as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and restrict the respondents from proceedings further and direct the Respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession over the scheduled property. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.JYOTHI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 10081 of 2009 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents-South Central Railway in raising a compound wall around the property belonging to the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. It is claimed that the petitioner and his family members are inherited the house bearing No.41-1/1 with appurtenant open land admeasuring 5463 sq. yards in S.No.386, 386/1 & 2 at Moulali, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. It is alleged that the respondents who had earlier acquired the open land adjacent to the petitioner’s house and proposed to construct a compound wall, had encroached upon the petitioner’s land and had been attempting to construct the compound wall highhandedly in the open land belonging to the petitioner. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, while denying the petitioner’s allegations, it is specifically pleaded that the land in question was acquired by the Railways in the year 1964 itself for construction of officers staff quarters for new railway zone. It is also stated that the respondents- Railway had constructed a compound wall long back and now the work of raising the said compound wall is in progress. It is also pleaded in the counter affidavit that the No Objection Certificate dated 05.03.2006 sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was never issued by the Railways and it was a fake and fabricated document. The material placed before this Court by the respondents further shows that as per the Pahani for the year 1972-1973, the land in question stands in the name of South Central Railway. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the controversy between the parties involves several disputed questions of fact which cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate common law remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance if any. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 25-06-2009 KLP