IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.13065 of 2010 Between: Sri Seetharama Swamyvari Temple, Salur, reptd., by Sri Vikrama Chandra Sanyasi Raju, Ex-Hill Zamindar of Salur, Kota Veedhi, Salur, Vizianagaram District. … Petitioner And The Municipal Council, Salur Municipality, Vizianagaram District, retpd., by its Chairperson and others. . … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Vidyasagar. Counsel for the respondents: Mrs.Beena for Sri S.Nageswara Reddy for R.1. None for R.2. AGP for Revenue for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in passing resolution, vide: Proceedings No.161 dated 30-4-2010, for collecting rents from the members of respondent No.2-Association and other tenants of Pedda Market/Pedda Bazaar, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a private temple. It claims ownership in respect of Ac.12.00 of land through registered gift deed, dated 19-8-1900 executed by the Maharani of Salur. Over an extent of Ac.2.00, out of the said land of Ac.12.00, Market/Bazar, by name Pedda Market/Pedda Bazar, is being run by the members of respondent No.2-Association. A dispute arose between the petitioner on one side and respondent No.1 on the other relating to the right over the said property. Respondent No.1 has passed resolution No.161, dated 30-4-2010, deciding to increase the lease amount at 33.1/3% with effect from 2008. This decision of respondent No.1 is questioned in this Writ Petition on the ground that while the petitioner has absolute title over the property in question, respondent No.1 has no manner of right whatsoever over the said property and that, therefore, the resolution passed on the premise that it is the owner of the property, cannot be sustained in law. Two counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1, wherein he has sought to trace the title of respondent No.1. It is, inter alia, stated that an extent of Ac.0.80 cents was purchased by the then President of the Salur Union Board (for short “the Board”), by name, Sundara Bhonj Deo, on 18-8-1927 from one Puripanda Krishnamma and others by means of a registered sale deed; and that the said purchase was made on behalf of the Board for the purpose of running public market. It is further averred that the Board was replaced by respondent No.1-Municipality in the year 1960 and that, thereby, it has derived title and possession over the said property. It is also stated that Sri Vikrama Chandra Sanyasi Raju, styling himself as the Trustee of the petitioner-temple, filed O.S.No.10 of 2006 in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Bobbili, in individual capacity; and that having filed the said suit, he cannot maintain the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while the petitioner is the true owner of the property with the original owner having executed a registered gift deed in its favour, respondent No.1 has no manner of right or title over the property in question. The learned counsel further submitted that even according to the admitted possession, Sri Sundara Bhonj Deo was only a lessee from the Maha Rani; and that, therefore, the title does not stand vested in respondent No.1. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The nature of the dispute referred to above would show that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are setting up title in them respectively. This court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be in a position to decide the title dispute, as adjudication of such dispute requires consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, to be let in by both the parties. It is, therefore, appropriate that the petitioner shall get its title declared by filing a civil suit before the competent civil court. Indeed the petitioner filed a suit, as noted above, but the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on advice, the said suit was withdrawn. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court when a serious dispute regarding the title persists between the two parties. As noted above, the only appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil court seeking declaration of its title and any other appropriate relief. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court. To enable the petitioner to avail such remedy, interim order dated 8-7-2011 in WPMP No.21340 of 2011 is extended for a period of eight weeks. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.16466 of 2011 and WVMP No.2656 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:08-8-2011 MNR