THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2968 of 2008 Date: 14.02.2008 Between: Hindu Graveyard Protection Committee … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2968 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 20.12.2007 issued by respondent No.1 and consequential letter, dated 03.02.2008 of respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles, 14, 21 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Heard Shri P.Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No.23689 of 2006 for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 8 therein, who include respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this writ petition, in not taking action against the office bearers of respondent No.9 and also not ensuring the law and order in the locality by preventing the office bearers from encroaching upon the graveyard situated in an extent of 2,500 sq.yards covered by Survey Nos.119 and 120 at Shobana Colony, Old Airport Road, Balanagar Village, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal. At the stage of admission, this Court dismissed the said writ petition with the observations, which are extracted hereunder: “The singular grievance in this writ petition by the petitioner- committee, claiming to be a registered society, is that the management committee members of the 9th respondent-Dargah are encroaching into a graveyard in Sy.Nos.119 and 120, Shobana Colony, Old Airport Road, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District and the respondents 1 to 8 have done nothing to prevent the office bearers of the 9th respondent from encroaching. Such a grievance as to forcible dispossession or interference with the ownership and enjoyment or administration of the graveyard by the petitioner is more appropriately addressed before a civil court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriately framed suit. Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked when such alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available.” Admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the remedy of filing a civil suit as observed by this Court. The present writ petition is filed questioning order, dated 20.12.2007 of respondent No.1, whereunder respondent No.5 is permitted to construct a boundary wall across the Graveyard, Masjid and Dargah Hazarath Syed Zaheeruddin Kaleemullah (Arab Shah Baba), Shobana Colony, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, while leaving 29 feet from road boundary as per the master plan to keep the entrance gate to North East side so as to enable the Hindus to use the pathway for observing the customs carried out prior to cremation. Following the said order, respondent No.2 issued consequential proceedings, wherein he requested respondent No.3 to provide necessary assistance/protection to carry out order, dated 20.12.2007 passed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under clause 5(3) of Schedule III of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, an order similar to the one passed by respondent No.1 can be passed only by respondent No.2 and that if a person is aggrieved by such an order, he has the remedy of filing an appeal before respondent No.1. He, therefore, stated that the said order is without jurisdiction. As already noted hereinabove, on an earlier occasion, this Court while observing that the dispute raised by the petitioner regarding title is required to be resolved only by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction, dismissed the writ petition. Instead of availing the said remedy, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Unless it establishes its title to the property over a part of which it alleges that respondent No.5 is permitted to raise a compound wall, it cannot object to such an action. Whether any part of the land belonging to the petitioner is being affected by raising of such a compound wall or not, is an issue which requires to be adjudicated on consideration of evidence by the civil Court. The appropriate remedy, therefore, for the petitioner lies in filing a civil suit in civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, expressed his apprehension that there is likely to be a law and order problem, if the order impugned in the writ petition is implemented. In the premises aforementioned, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take steps to ensure maintenance of law and order. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the competent civil Court and seek appropriate orders. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.3855 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni