THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 271 of 2009 Date: BETWEEN: N.C. Krishnamacharyulu and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 271 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.12.2008 in Writ Petition No. 31276 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants-writ petitioners. The appellants/writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single judge challenging the notice bearing letter No. B/5673/76, dated 30.8.1997 issued by the 1st respondent herein. The said notice was issued in the name of one Vijayalakshmi alleging that she illegally encroached and raised structures over the land in Survey Nos. 235 and 236 and 237 of Ameerpet Revenue Village admeasuring an extent of Acs. 0.28 guntas and 21 square yards, which was acquired by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and possession was also taken on 4.8.1981. Before the learned single judge, the appellants pleaded that an extent of 612 sq. yards of land in the said survey numbers was purchased by one Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi through a sale deed dated 18.7.1975 from one Mohd. Mashitulla and others. Subsequently, she executed a will deed dated 16.6.1976 bequeathing the said property in favour of the 1st appellant. She expired on 31.7.1977. That after her death, the 1st appellant became the owner of the property. Subsequently, he executed an agreement of sale, dated 28.1.198 in favour of the 2nd appellant herein. They further contended that neither in the notification issued 1under Section 4(1) of the Act nor in the subsequent Award passed in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings, the name of the said Vijayalakshmi did not figure; that the Award was passed without hearing the interested persons and the substance of the notification was not published within 40 days from the date of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act. In support of this contention, they tried to rely on a judgment of this Court in I.I.S. Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., vs. State of Karnataka and others ([1]). While opposing the contentions, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit before the learned single judge. It is stated that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act in respect of the land in question have become final and the land also vested in the Government. Even though several writ petitions have been instituted in relation to the land in question, all of them have ended in dismissal. The learned single judge having considered the submissions on either side and on a perusal of the material on record, has held that there is a serious dispute as to the date of death of the Vijayalakshmi and in view of the fact that the appellants did not challenge the acquisition proceedings under the Act, no relief can be granted. On that ground, he dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners filed the present writ appeal. Sri E. Manohar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants while reiterating the very same contentions, which were urged before the learned single Judge sought to contend that by virtue of the will executed by Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, the 1st appellant became the absolute owner of the property in question after the death of the said Vijayalakshmi Learned counsel further contended that inasmuch as the writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the appellants from their lawful possession of the land in question, the learned judge ought to have restrained the respondent-authorities from taking possession of the lands and ordered for restoration of possession. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there is no material available on record to show that the 1st appellant is the owner of the property. Further, the appellant except stating that the property in question was bequeathed by one Smt. Vijayalakshmi in his favour by virtue of the will executed 16.6.1976,did not file any material to show that he is the legatee of the said Vijayalakshmi. Further, there is a serious dispute as regards the death of the said Vijayalakshmi. The learned single judge, while taking all these facts into consideration has rightly dismissed the writ petition. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the very claim of the 1st appellant that he is the owner of the property in question is based on the will said to have been executed by the deceased Vijayalakshmi. It is also evident from the record that in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 3599 of 1986, the husband of the said Vijayalakshmi stated that his wife expired on 31.1.1997 leaving himself as her only legal heir. However, the 1st appellant who is claiming to be the legatee under the will said to have been executed by the said Vijayalakshmi, stated that she died on 31.7.1977. Therefore, there is a serious dispute with regard to the date of death of the deceased Vijayalakshmi. That apart, there is no material on record to show that the appellant has made any efforts to get his name mutated in the revenue records after the execution of the will by the said Vijayalakshmi in his favour. The appellant also disputed about the acquisition proceedings as well as the factum of taking over of possession of the land in question by the Government and asserted that he continued to be in possession of the property in question. In view of the fact that the very basis for the claim of the 1st appellant is based on a will dated 16.6.1976 said to have been executed by Vijayalakshmi and in view of the fact that there is a serious dispute with regard to the date of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, such disputed questions of fact are not amenable for resolution in writ appeal. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned single judge warranting interference. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 1st December, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb [1] (2005)12 SCC 483