IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 4441 of 2003 Between: Abdul Azeez bin Almas, S/o Late Almas Muslim, R/o 6-248/3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Asifnagar Mandal, O/o. Vijaynagar Colony, Hyderabad. (The Causetittle of R2 is amended as per Court Order dt. 16-4-2003 in WPMP 7739/03 .....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 to pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the respondents have right whatsoever to disposes the petitioner from his property bearing M.C.No.6-2-48/3 admeasuring 400 Sq.yards situated at A.C.guards, Hyderabad bounded by North: Property bearing No.6-2-196/2, South: Land and Property of neighbour, East:Road leading to Bistivada, West: Land and Property neighbour, without taking due course of law, as their action is violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Consequently this Hon'ble court be please to pass a direction directing the respondents their employees and subordinates, not to dispossesee or cause any interfeerence into the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of his property bearing M.C.No.6-2-48/3 admeasuring 400 Sq.Yards situated at A.C.Guards, Hyderabad bounded by North:Property bearing No.6-2-196/2, South: Land and Property of neighbour, East:Road leading to Bistivada, West: Land and Property neighbour and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner filed a letter for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if the respondent-authorities again interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the premises bearing M.C.No.6-2-48/3 in an extent of 400 Sq. yards at A.C.Guards and alleges that the 2nd respondent was interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same and are trying to encroach into the property. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the land is Government land situated in T.S.No. 41 Block R, Ward No.37 of Mallepally Village and is classified as ‘Government Non- Indian State Forces Land’. When there is such a serious dispute as to the title to the property, there can be no interference by this Court and the petitioner will have to seek determination of his title and safeguarding of his possession in an appropriate proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had already approached the civil court and obtained a declaration against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in O.S.No. 586 of 1995. It requires to be noticed that the dispute with regard to the petitioner’s title is not by the Municipal Corporation but by the Mandal Revenue Officer stating that the land belongs to the Government. Whether this is so and whether the State Government is bound by the earlier judicial determination in O.S.No. 586 of 1995 is a matter to be determined in an appropriate civil proceedings and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the aforesaid analysis while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn, liberty is granted to the petitioner, if further aggrieved, to move the appropriate civil court of competent jurisdiction, for any grievance regarding interference with his property by the respondents herein. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn as above. There shall be no order as to costs. The interim order earlier granted by this Court shall stand dissolved. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 26th March, 2009. GRR