IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15798 of 2008 Between: R.Narsing Rao S/oRam Dass H.No.17-2-708 Madannapet Saidapet Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman Research Center Imarat DRDO Ministry of Defence Post Vigyana Kancha Hyderabad-69 2 The Tahsildar Saroor Nagar R.R District 3 The District Collector R.R District Lakdika Pool Hyderabad .....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 issue an appropriate writ,order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to remove the erected boards on the petitioner's land i.e Plot No.42,43 and 44 admeasuring 933 Sq.yards equivalent to 780.10 sq.mts in Sy.No.3 to 8 Faqir Malla Situated at Kurmalguda(V) Saroornagar rev.(M) Ranga Reddy District by declaring the action of the respondent No.1 is void and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.S.RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The case of the petitioner is that he is the title holder and possessor of vacant Plot Nos. 42, 43 and 44 admeasuring 933 sq. yards of land equivalent to 780.10 sq. mtrs. in Sy. Nos.3 to 8 situated at Kurmalguda village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed dated 27.9.2006 executed in his favour. While so, the petitioner found some boards with the writing “Land is of DRDO & RCI” erected in his land and when he informed the respondents about the erection of the boards by some anti-social elements, they remained silent spectators. Then, the petitioner issued legal notice dated 6.7.2008 to the 1st respondent, demanding him to remove the erected sign boards on his land, but the respondents have not taken any steps to get the sign boards removed. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to remove the sign boards erected in his land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Upon hearing the arguments, it appears that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 with respect to the ownership of the land in question. If the petitioner claims that he is the title holder to the property and if respondent No.1 is interfering with his possession by erecting the boards stating that the land belongs to them, then the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief against respondent No.1, and the writ petition is not a remedy. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach any competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 2nd March, 2009 bcj