HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.9030 of 2003 Dated: 17-03-2011 Between: N.Srinivaa Ravi Kumar …Petitioner AND The District Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad and others Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.9030 of 2003 ORDER: Petitioner, who claims to have purchased plot measuring 1000 sq.yds. in Sy.No.207, situated at Jawahar Colony, Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District under registered sale deed vide document No.4444/2002, dated 22.5.2002, filed the present writ petition questioning the auction notice published in the Deccan Chronicle English daily newspaper, dated 21.4.2003 putting the plot admeasuring 498 sq.yds. in Sy.No.174 of Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District for sale. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in question and he applied to the first respondent for regulation of his possession, but in the meanwhile, the said plot has been put to auction. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is categorically stated that the plot purchased by the petitioner is situated in Sy.No.207 of Chandanagar Village and that the sale transactions that took place in Sy.No.207 are not concerned to the respondents as the land in Sy.No.207 is a patta land. But the land in Sy.No.174 measuring Ac.2.20 gts. is classified as ‘Sarkari Poramboke’ right from Sethwar and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the land in Sy.No.174. Even as per the sale deed of the petitioner, he purchased the land in Sy.No.207 only. The petitioner purchased the plot in patta land i.e. Sy.No.207 but he is claiming the land in Sy.No.174. None appears for the petitioner in spite of posting the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’. As per the pleadings as referred to above, it appears, there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner’s property purchased under the registered sale deed, dated 22.5.2002. The dispute is whether the plot purchased by the petitioner falls under Sy.No.207 or under 174. If that be the case, the said disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a summary manner by this Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court to protect his right in the property purchased by him. If the petitioner feels that though the property is described in Sy.No.207, it actually falls under Sy.No.174 as stated by him, and if he had already applied to the first respondent for regularization of his occupation, it is open for him to pursue the remedy for regularization of the said land. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 17, 2011 Tsr.