THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.75 of 2008 Date: 17.01.2008 Between: Smt. R. Sree Maha Lakshmi … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam & others. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri J. Bhaskara Rao for Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.75 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare that the respondents are not entitled to dispossess the petitioner from the property admeasuring Ac.0.35 cents of land comprised in RS.No.20 of Vidyadharapuram of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that he entered into an agreement of sale on 11.07.1973 for an extent of Ac.0.35 cents situated in R.S.No.20 of Vidhyadharapuram Village of Vijayawada with one Mujumdar Srinivasa Rao and his brothers, who are the original owners of the total extent of Ac.2.57 cents of land situated in the said survey number. When disputes arose between the petitioner, the original owners and the third parties, the same was referred for arbitration. The arbitrators passed final award on 22.07.1995, whereby they directed the original owners to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the agreement holders and the latter were directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the original owners. A decree was passed by the civil Court on 30.11.1995, making the said award a rule of the Court and the said award was registered as document No.4566 of 1995. It is further averred that one Chenchu Malyadri and the son of the original owners by name Mujumdar Kameswara Rao filed O.S.No.115 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for specific performance of alleged agreement of sale dated 02.01.1993 in respect of 1953 square yards of land situated in the said survey number and a decree was obtained by them by getting the said suit referred to Lok Adalath. It is further averred that E.P.No.92 of 2007 was filed by them on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in which the petitioner filed an interlocutory application to reject the said E.P. and the said application is pending. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondents came to the site on 24.12.2007 claiming that the property belongs to the State. The petitioner explained to them about the antecedents of the title besides making representation dated 24.12.2007. Notwithstanding the same, again on 31.12.2007 respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to the site and sought to dispossess the petitioner. Heard Sri J. Bhaskara Rao representing Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is making a claim over the property on the basis of an arbitration award which, according to him, was made a rule of Court by a competent civil Court. The petitioner’s own pleadings show that in respect of the same property an award was passed by the Lok Adalath in favour of the third party and E.P.No.92 of 2007 is pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner’s pleadings thus unmistakably show that the title of the property in question is in serious dispute. The questions whether the property belongs to the petitioner or the third party, who got a decree from the Lok Adalath from the Government cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Admittedly, the respondents are not parties to the arbitration award and the decree passed by the civil Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot enforce the alleged decree against the respondents. I am therefore of the considered view that the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be decided on merits. However, since the petitioner claims to have made representation dated 24.12.2007, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the same, if already received by it, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed by respondent No.2, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach a competent civil Court for getting her title declared and other necessary reliefs. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.77 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.01.2008 ES