THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17498 of 2005 ORDER: Although the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at the request of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing and being disposed of by this order. This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of Plot No.623-D forming part of (Old Sy.No.403/1) New Survey No.120 of Shaikpet Village and 102/1 of Hakimpet Village, in Ward No.8, Block-2 of Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forebear from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over Plot No.623-D forming part of (Old Sy.No.403/1) New Survey No.120 of Shaikpet Village and 102/1 of Hakimpet Village, in Ward No.8, Block-2 of Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society.” It is the case of the petitioner that she is a member of the third respondent House Building Society, which has allotted her plot bearing No.623-D in Block-2 in the land covered by Survey Nos.120 and 102/1 of Hakimpet Village. It is her grievance that though she has become the owner of the property by virtue of allotment and subsequent execution of registered sale deed by the third respondent in her favour, there is interference by respondents 1 and 2 with her possession. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, while denying various allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the plot which has been claimed by the petitioner is a part of the Government land to an extent of 1,871 sq.meters in T.S.No.2, Block-A, Ward No.9 correlated to Old Survey No.403 of Shaikpet Village, which has been allotted to Lt. Col. Sharma and Dr. Vikram Sharma vide G.O.Ms.No.678, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 17.10.2001 in lieu of acquisition of their property bearing plot Nos.13-6-785/A/10 & 11 at Sangham, Langer House. In similar lines, respondents 4 and 5 filed a separate counter- affidavit, in which, it is stated that in lieu of acquisition of their property at Langer House, the Government has allotted land admeasuring 1,871 sq.meters and they were put in possession by conducting panchanama and they are in possession of the same, as such, there is no question of interference by respondents 1 and 2 with the possession of the petitioner, who is not in possession of the land in question. At the stage of admission, this Court passed interim order on 09.08.2005 directing the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession as on that date. The said interim order continued during pendency of the Writ Petition. Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri C.V.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Mohamood Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. From a perusal of allegations of the petitioner with reference to the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 4 and 5, it emerges that it is purely a factual dispute with regard to possession of the land in question. It is the case of the petitioner that she is in possession of the land in question by virtue of allotment and registered sale deed executed by the third respondent Society. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that it is a part of the land allotted to respondents 4 and 5 by the Government and they are in possession. In view of rival claim for title and possession, it is not possible for this Court to record any finding thereon unless evidence is recorded. In view of serious factual disputes among the parties, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to examine the same in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the fact that the interim order of status quo was passed by this Court as early as on 09.08.2005 and as it continued all along, I direct the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land in question for a period of two (2) months from today. It is made clear that the petitioner is granted liberty to pursue any other remedy available to her under law. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th AUGUST, 2011. kvni