THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19430 of 2008 ORDER: The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., 2nd respondent herein, in its capacity as Court of Wards, constituted under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli (for short ‘the Act’), passed an order dated 14-03-2005, releasing four items of property. One such item is an extent of Ac.9.15 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.358/1 and 358/2 and Old Sy.No.329 of Kohe Moula Ali. The petitioners challenge the said order. It is stated that the petitioners purchased an extent of 5,300 sq. yards of land in Sy.Nos.358/1 and 358/2, of Moula Ali, through different sale deeds in the year 2002, and constructed a Function Hall thereon. It is alleged that, when the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued notices under Sections 452 and 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, they filed W.P.Nos.11581 of 2008, and that the application for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.901, Municipal Administration, dated 31-12-2007 is pending. The petitioners state that on the strength of the order dated 14-03-2005, passed by the 2nd respondent, the authorities of the Revenue Department are trying to evict them by issuing notices. According to the petitioners, the impugned order is without jurisdiction on the ground that the Court of Wards released the entire properties from its control in the year 1950 itself. Reference is made to written statement filed by the 2nd respondent herein in O.S.No.469 of 1983, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is further alleged that the description of the property is vague, and it does not accord with the one, given to the properties, that were taken under the control of the Court of Wards. Counter-affidavits are filed by some of the contesting parties, i.e., respondents 3 to 23, separately. They challenge the very maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order, since they did not figure as parties, at any stage. The contentions advanced by the petitioners, on merits, are seriously contradicted. They have also taken the plea that the writ petitions are not maintainable, since alternative remedy is provided for under the Act. Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent has stated in unequivocal terms before the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by filing written statement in O.S.No.469 of 1983, that all the properties, under the control of Court of Wards, were released in the year 1950 itself, and in that view of the matter, there is no basis for the impugned order. He contends that the property at Moula Ali, taken under the control of the Court of Wards in the year 1914, was hardly with any description, and the 2nd respondent has supplied the survey numbers for the first time through the impugned order. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the 2nd respondent discussed the matter, in detail, and passed the impugned order, in his capacity as a quasi-judicial authority. He contends that the petitioners have no locus standi, and at any rate, can avail the alternative remedy of appeal. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submit that the petitioners do not have any subsisting right or title over the properties covered by the impugned order. They contend that the so-called purchase made by the petitioners during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Wards is without any consequence in law. They too raised the ground of locus standi and alternative remedy. The Court of Wards is constituted with an object of preserving certain properties entrusted to it. It was almost a long drawn process before the Court of Wards, in the context of release of items of property, one after the other. Neither the petitioners nor their vendors figured as parties before the 2nd respondent. This Court would have taken note of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, touching on the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, had it been a case where such a plea was raised, and was either rejected or not considered at all. On the application made on behalf of the respondents 3 to 23, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order. There was virtually no contest for their claim. The Act provides for an appeal under Section 69 of the Act. For all practical purposes, an appeal under Section 69 is the continuation of the proceedings before the original authority. Appreciation of the evidence needs detailed verification and some times, examination of parties. The scope of adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has its own limitations. It mostly deals with the decision making process, than the decision itself, that too, of the administrative and quasi-judicial authorities. In the instant case, the dispute is mostly between, or among the private parties. Therefore, the petitioners have to avail the remedy of appeal. As a matter of fact, two persons, by name, Afsar Begum and Gafoorunnisa Begum, who figured as parties in the proceedings before the 2nd respondent, have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5781 of 2005, assailing the proceedings dated 14-03-2005. The writ petition was disposed of on 26-07-2005, leaving it open to them to avail the remedy of appeal. It is stated that an appeal filed by them is pending adjudication, before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the 1st respondent. Obviously, not being parties to the proceedings, the petitioners are not aware of the impugned order, till recently. Since they too felt aggrieved by it, they can be permitted to prefer an appeal, duly condoning the delay and by protecting their interest, till such time. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 6 of the Act. The appeal before the 1st respondent, if presented within four weeks from today, shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation. Status quo obtaining as on today in relation to the possession and enjoyment of 5,300 sq. yards of land in Sy.Nos.358/1 and 358/2, shall be maintained, for a period of six weeks from today. It shall be open to the petitioners to seek interim orders before the Appellate Authority. The petitioners as well as the respondents 3 to 23 shall be entitled to put forward their respective contentions, touching on questions of fact and law before the Appellate Authority. The appeal, if presented, shall be heard along with any other appeals, that are preferred against the order dated 14-03-2005, passed by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.20-02-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO