THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22868 OF 2011 Dated: 19.10.2011 Between: G. Dharma Rao and others. … Petitioners And The Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Co-operative Finance Corporation, Government Of A.P. Undertaking, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. …. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22868 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners claim title and possession in respect of Ac.2-18 guntas of land situated in Sy.Nos.111, 112 & 113 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District, having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 27.2.1968. It is stated that in the year 1986 they constructed certain rooms for the purpose of shops in an extent of 250 sq. yards after obtaining permission from the Municipality. According to the petitioners, the land in Sy.No.110 which is situated adjacent to their lands is the Government land and the same was allotted to the Women and Child Welfare Department. It is stated that as the said land had no approach road from the main road, on a request made by the officials of the Women and Child Welfare Department, the petitioners had provided an approach road through their land to an extent of 667 sq. yards. However, subsequently the Women and Child Welfare Department had constructed a hostel building on the land that was given by the petitioners for the purpose of approach road. While so, the petitioners came to know that at the instance of the respondent herein the land in question was surveyed without notice to the petitioners. It is alleged that on the basis of the said survey report, the respondent was claiming that the shops that were constructed by the petitioner fall within the Government l and. Having come to know of the respondent’s claim, the petitioners addressed a letter dated 18.7.2011 to the respondent reiterating their title to the land situated in Sy.Nos.111, 112 & 113 and asserting that the shops were constructed in their own land. However, the respondent in their reply dated 26.7.2011 alleged that the petitioners had encroached upon the Government land situated in Sy.No.110 and the said encroached land was put to commercial use illegally. Thus the petitioners were called upon to vacate the encroached land immediately, failing which proceedings would be initiated as per law for eviction. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the petitioners had encroached upon the Government land situated in Sy.No.110. It is also stated that a survey was conducted on 16.8.2010 by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, R.R. District after notice to the petitioners and that the survey report shows that Ac.0-9 guntas of Government land situated in Sy.No.110 was encroached by the petitioners. Thus it is contended that the letter dated 26.7.2011 was rightly issued calling upon the petitioners to vacate the said encroached portion. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the pleadings noticed above, whereas the petitioners claimed that they constructed the shops in their own land situated in Sy.Nos.111, 112 & 113, it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioners had encroached upon the Government land situated in Sy.No.110 and had put the same to commercial use by constructing shops. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. That apart, the matter does not involve enforcement of any statutory obligation on the part of the respondent. Merely because the respondent Corporation is an Undertaking of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioners cannot seek a Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioners from the alleged encroached portion of the Government land. As a matter of fact, under the letter dated 26.7.2011, the petitioners were only informed that appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law in case the petitioners failed to vacate the encroached portion of the land in Sy.No.110. At any rate, on the face of it the dispute relates to mere property rights between the parties and therefore if aggrieved the petitioners have to avail the appropriate common law remedy but they cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, this shall not preclude the petitioners to avail the appropriate common law remedy before the proper forum for redressal of their grievance, if any. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.10.2011 gbs