IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 436 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/09/2007 in WP NO : 13003 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. K. Rajeshwari ... APPELLANT AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Medical & Health Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad rep., by its Principal Secretary and four others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. B. Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Government Pleader for Medical and Health Counsel for Respondent No.3: Government Pleader for Labour Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5: Government Pleader for Finance and Planning The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 20-09-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 13003 of 2003, this appeal has been filed. 2. The appellant – original petitioner is a landlady whose property had been given on rent to the government authorities for the purpose of running a dispensary. The question, which was involved in the petition was with regard to fixation and payment of rent. 3. It appears that the issue with regard to fixation of rent has been referred to a Committee, as stated by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities. The dispute between the parties being a civil dispute, in our opinion, this Court should not entertain the same. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, about Rs.3,70,000/- were to be recovered from the respondent authorities towards rent. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that Rs.4,00,000/- had been paid and about Rs.30,000/- had been paid in excess. 5. In view of disputed questions of fact regarding fixation of rent, the petition was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. It has been however very fairly submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the calculations with regard to fixation of rent and the amount payable by way of rent would be furnished to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Looking to the above facts, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Needless to say that if the appellant is aggrieved by the amount so determined by the Committee, it would be open to her to take appropriate action for recovery of the said amount by approaching the civil Court. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2009 ks