IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27629 of 2011 Between: Jakkula Papayya … Petitioner And A.P. TRANSCO, rep., by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha Building, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri S.V. Ramana for Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri C. Shanmukha Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27629 of 2011 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. I have heard Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Shanmukha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to remove the platform of transformer allegedly raised in the land admeasuring 430 square yards comprised in premises bearing No.3-121 of Dundigal Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that originally the land belonged to five persons, who are allegedly stated to have executed a sale-cum-general power of attorney in favour of Dr. Avaru Sadanand S/o. Chillakaiah vide registered GPA No.5925/2001 Book-1, dated 25.07.2001 and that the old house bearing No.3-121 was allegedly renumbered as 5-44/1. The petitioner further pleaded that since the date of purchase of the property, he is in possession of the same and obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction of house on 05.10.2007. The petitioner alleged that recently respondent No.4 has given his site adjoining his house on lease for erection of cell tower to Tata company, which erected the tower. In order to use the cell tower, power supply was required by the said company and in that connection respondent No.4 tried to erect transformer on the petitioner’s site. The grievance of the petitioner is that the site over which the transformer is sought to be erected belongs to him and that the representations given to respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not yield any result. Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has claimed that the site over which the transformer is erected belongs to him and denied the claim of the petitioner that the premises bearing No.5-44/1 of Dundigal Village belongs to him. Respondent No.4 has pointed out that as per the document filed by the petitioner, the said property was purchased by one Ladipeerla Krishna and not by the petitioner. A careful perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that he has not traced his title to the property in question. According to the petitioner, the five persons named in the affidavit executed a GPA in favour of Dr. Avaru Sadanand. Without further disclosing as to how the petitioner acquired title over the property, he claimed that ever since his purchase, he is in possession of the same. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.4, sale deed, dated 14.05.2003, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner, stands in the name of Ladipeerla Krishna and the petitioner does not figure therein. Apart from the above fact that the petitioner failed to trace clear title in his favour or substantiate the same with reference to the relevant documents, there is a serious dispute regarding the question whether the site, over which the transformer is being erected, belongs to the petitioner or respondent No.4. While exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on this disputed question of fact. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court by filing a suit and claiming appropriate relief therein. Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.34075 and 36189 of 2011 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.11.2011 ES