IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13899 of 2005 Between: Mr. G. Srisailam Goud S/o Sri G. Swamy R/o 7-1121/9, Rangmahal Road, Putibowli, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad Distrit, Hyderabad 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally Hyderabad 4 the Principal Osmania Mecdical College, Koti, Hyderabd .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to grant an order, direction or Writ more so in the nature of WRit of Mandmaus, declaring the actions of the respondnets herein in trying to dispossess the petitioern and constructing wall over theschedule property without any basis or right and without granting any opportunity to the petitooenr before such action, by way of notice or intimation, to defend his case, as illegal, arbitrary highhanded apart from vioaltive of princples of natural justice and article 14 19 and 300A of the Constitition of India and consequently direct the respondnets herein to remove the construction made over the schedule property and pass such other order or orders as thsi Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances fo the case Counsel for the Petitioner:M/S.RPN ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The complaint in this writ petition is that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner and are constructing a wall over his property without authority or title and without an opportunity to the petitioner before initiating the action. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises bearing No. 4- 7-1121/9, Rangmahal Road, Putlibowli, Hyderabad and to have acquired the same under a will deed dated 18-10-1965 executed by his mother during her life time. His mother is stated to have purchased the property from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under a registered sale deed dated 31-8-1955 executed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. The mother was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of purchase. On the death of his mother on 9-7-1980, the property devolved on the petitioner under a will executed by the mother and whenceforth the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment thereof. The petitioner also asserts that his name was mutated in the municipal records on 24-5- 2005 and he is paying the property tax. The petitioner has also applied for and obtained a building permission for construction of a building. The petitioner further pleads that while he was proceeding to commence the construction, the 2nd and 3rd respondents visited the property on 26-6-2005 and claimed that the property belonged belonging to the Government as per the Town Survey Land Record; tried to dispossess him highhandedly and arbitrarily and also commenced construction of a compound wall over the schedule property with the help of officials and the police. When the petitioner made enquiries, respondents 2 and 3 informed him that the 4th respondent had complained that the schedule property belongs to it and is being illegally occupied by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property. After considerable delay, the 1st respondent has recently filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is pleaded in the counter-affidavit that the petition schedule land falls in T.S.No.20, Block “A”, Ward No.193 of Thotaguda Village of Nampally Mandal, is Government land and has been in continuous possession of the 4th respondent-College. A Town survey was undertaken in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad during 1963 to 1976 under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’). After the survey, notices under section (1) and (2) of the Act were issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad for lands recorded as Government lands. After the survey of Nampally Village, the survey report was published in Gazette No.70 dated 31-12- 1976 as required under the Act enabling the aggrieved persons to file claims and objections before the final survey report is drawn up. As there were no claims and objections received, the Gazette notification of the Town Survey report and its enumerations have become final and binding. According to the answering respondents in the TSLR, the land in question is recorded in Col.No.10 as a Village site, and in Col.No.20 as a Medical College, verifying the fact that the land is Government land. The 1st respondent pleads that the petitioner had dismantled the compound wall of the Osmania Medical College and tried to encroach on the premises of the College with a view to make illegal construction; the 4th respondent resisted the same and also registered a police complaint on 25-6-2005 with the SHO, Sultan Bazar PS against one Praveen Goud with a copy marked to the 3rd respondent. The compound wall dismantled by one Praveen Goud belongs to the Osmania Medical College and is Government land falling in TS No. 20, Block “A” Ward No.193 of Thotaguda Village. It is further pleaded that from the TSLR report issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad vide letter dated 28-3-2005, the property bearing H.No. 4-7-1121/10 alienated to the petitioner under a sale deed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is in TS No. 21. The petitioner’s claim that the property, which is inherited from his mother on alienation by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is in TS No.20 is false and baseless, contends the State in the Counter From the catalogue assertions made by the 1st respondent, read with the claims by the petitioner, it is clear that there is a serious factual dispute as to the location and identity of the property whether it is in TS No.20 or 21. Such factual disputes are not normally amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. Should the petitioner wish to establish his title to a particular property or the identity and location of such property, in the context of factual disputes apparent from the record of the case (on the basis of the pleadings by the petitioner and the assertions in the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent), the appropriate course for the petitioner is to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction. On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 17th February, 2009. GRR