THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18873 of 2006 Dated:20.03.2007 Between: Palle Ramesh and others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18873 of 2006 ORDER: Palle Sayanna was, as alleged, the owner of land admeasuring Acs.6.00 in Survey No.403/71 situated at Shaikpet Village of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, by reason of patta certificate granted by the Government in 1953. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be sons of late Sayanna. Petitioners 3 and 4 appear to have expressed interest to purchase the property from petitioners 1 and 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 made application to the respondents seeking to conduct survey. Though such application was made on 24.07.2006, respondents did not take any action, aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the third respondent to survey the land in Survey Nos.403/71 and 403/10 situated at Shaikpet Village. After getting instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-T) points out that admittedly there is a dispute between petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 4 and 5, and instead of approaching the civil Court, the present Writ Petition is filed. The dispute being in a private law realm, the Writ Petition would not lie. He relies on paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit, which reads as under. I humbly submit that the Respondent No.4 and 5 are not having any right in and over the land in Survey No.403/71 but wontedly with an ill motive they are trying to interfere in to the same with the assistance of the Respondents No.1 to 3, therefore the petitioner have apprehended very much the Respondent 1 to 5 may interfere into the land and dispossess the petitioners from the same, therefore the petitioner have approached this Hon’ble Court to seek efficacious remedy. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and after perusing the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition, this Court is convinced that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the interference caused or claimed by respondents 4 and 5, they have to necessarily seek relief in a civil Court, in which event, they can also seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner. This Writ Petition is misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20.03.2007 vs