IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10515 of 2002 Between: Avula Cinna Krishna … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad & anoter. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10515 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his plot admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.No.403/56 (new) of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Yousfuguda, Hyderabad, without due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner’s case is that land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.129/104 of Shaikpet Village was allotted to one Triambak Rao son of Govind Rao by Serf-e-Khas Mubarak in 1340 F at the rate of Rs.150/- per acre, that his name was entered in the revenue records and supplementary sethwar, that subsequently the said Triambak Rao sold the said land to Sri Yadaiah son of Yellaiah and Shaik Meren Saheb son of Madali Saheb by registered sale deed dated 30.10.1967 and possession was delivered to them and that subsequently the said Yadaiah, who got 50% share of Ac.2.20 guntas, sold one plot admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.No.129/104 (old) Sy.No.403/56 (new) to the petitioner by a simple sale deed dated 15.12.1971 and possession was delivered to him. It is his further case that he constructed two rooms over the said land and that on 06.05.2002 the oﬃcers of the respondents came to the said land and demolished the rooms constructed by him. The petitioner averred that the respondents cannot highhandedly dispossess him without following due process of law. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, he inter alia averred that the land in dispute falls in T.S.No.1/1/1, Block-B, Ward No.10, which is correlated to Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village and the same is recorded as Government land. He further stated that the initial survey of Shaikpet Village was conducted in 1320 F and completed in 1330 F, that the entire Shaikpet Village was surveyed under 353 survey numbers in the said survey and Sy.No.129 admeasuring Ac.3288.03 guntas was classiﬁed as Government land, which was popularly known as Kancha Tatti Khana. He further stated that in 1331 F a supplementary sethwar was issued by sub-dividing Sy.No.129 into 10 divisions as Sy.Nos.129/1 to 129/10, that Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10 admeasuring Ac.190.03 guntas were assigned to Sri Moulvi Mohd. Moinuddin and the remaining extent in Sy.No.129/1 was recorded as Government land. He further stated that the revision survey of Shaikpet Village was conducted in 1348 F and completed in 1352 F. As per Wasool Baqui register of revenue, except Sy.Nos.129/19, 129/23 and 129/85, Sy.Nos.129/11 to 129/87 were assigned revision survey numbers and they are shown as patta lands, but this revision survey was not implemented as per records. The answering respondent also referred to the Town Survey conducted in 1964-70 under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, according to which, the land in dispute forms part of T.S.No.1/1/1, Block-B, Ward No. 10. He denied the claim of the petitioner that old Sy.No.129/104 is correlated to Sy.No.430/56 and stated that both the survey numbers are not at all in existence in revenue and survey records of Shaikpet Village and that the claim of the petitioner is wholly bogus. He pointed out the sale transaction referred to by the petitioner and stated that the same does not create any right in the petitioner over the land in dispute. While denying the contention of the petitioner that on 06.05.2002 the oﬃcers of the respondents have come to the property in question for demolishing the rooms, he stated that the said property has already been proposed for construction of school building for Jawahar Nagar Basthi people as the suit scheduled property is vacant on the ground and is in possession of the Government and that the respondents erected a sign board to that effect. The petitioner ﬁled a reply aﬃdavit controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Having regard to the nature of the dispute as referred to above, the questions regarding the identity of the plot, the correct survey numbers and whether the title came to be vested in the petitioner constitute disputed questions of fact, which this Court cannot adjudicate while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach civil Court to seek appropriate relief. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12924 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.10.2008 ES