HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23487 of 2002 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner from constructing the compound wall, for protection of his property in an extent of 456 sq. yards in Sy.No.48/2A of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakahpatnam District, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner would submit that, by virtue of agreement of sale-cum-power of attorney dated 11.11.2002, he had purchased the property in his name and in the name of his wife; the total extent of property purchased was 456 sq. yards; his vendor had purchased the property on 17.11.1978; his title could be traced to Yelamanchili Paidaiah whose name was found in Gilman register prepared in 1903; the 2nd respondent – Devastanam claimed the land in five villages viz., Vepagunta, Chimulapalli, Advaivanam, Venkatapuram and Purushothapuram as inam villages from the Vizianagaram estate; the Tribunal had held that they were not inam villages; thereafter proceedings under the A.P. Inam, Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 were initiated; a patta was granted in favour of the Devastanam in respect of Purushothapuram village in A.T.A.No.53 of 1977; the patta did not show Sy.No.48 at all; the 2nd respondent could not, therefore, claim any interest in the property; even otherwise a patta granted under the Inams Abolition Act was not a document of title; it was only a conversion of tenure from inam to ryotwari, there was no concept of vestiture of title in the patta holder; therefore the 2nd respondent had no authority to claim the property. The petitioner would refer to a spate of litigation between purchasers of land and the Devastanam, and would contend that most of such matters are pending before the R.D.O. Visakhapantam. It is the petitioner’s case that, with a view to protect their property from encroachment and to make necessary development for construction of a building, they started making trenches for constructing the compound wall; the representatives of the 2nd respondent prevented them from doing so; and the 2nd respondent was acting illegally in preventing them from enjoying the property. While the 1st respondent would state that they were not interfering with the petitioner’s possession, the 2nd respondent, in their counter affidavit, would assert that the petitioner had no enforceable right for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in preventing him from constructing the compound wall as illegal; there were several disputed questions of fact which could be decided only in a suit; the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) had passed order dated 28.1.1978 under Section 3(3) of the Inams Abolition Act; except the waste land and poramboke which vested in the Government, the rest of the lands which comprised cultivable areas covered by T.D.No.1273 vested in the Simhachalam Devastanam; S.No.47/2, admeasuring an extent of 0.05 cents, was shown as banjar lands; the rest of the lands, covered by Sy.Nos.47/1, 48/1, 48/2A/48/2B, 48/2C & 48/2D, vested with the Simhachalam Devastanam; by mistake, while granting pattas in respect of the lands covered by 47/2A, 27/2B, 47/2C, 47/2D, they were shown as 47/1, 48/1, 48/2A, 48/2B, 48/2C & 48/2D. The same mistake occurred in G.O.Ms.No.511 dated 28.7.2000 issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act; even as per Gillman Register the lands situated in Sy.Nos.47 and 48, including their sub-divisions of Purushottapuram, were covered by T.D.No.1273, while noting the Sy.Nos, in proceedings in A.I.A.No.53/77 dated 5.9.1996, the Mandal Revenue Officer had mistakenly shown Sy.No.48 and its sub-divisions as S.No.47; as per column No.8 of the Gilman Register 1903, Yelamanchili Appalaswamy was the tenant/occupier of the land covered by S.No.47/2A and not Yelamanchali Pydayya as claimed by the petitioner; by mistake it was shown that the lands covered by Sy.No.48 as the land covered by S.No.47 of Purushotapuram and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim any right over the land, taking advantage of clerical error in Form VIII while noting the survey numbers. It is evident from the averments that the petitioner claims title over the land which he claims to have purchased. This Court passed an interim order on 26.11.2002 permitting the petitioner to construct compound wall alone and that he should not make any further construction. Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, would fairly state that the petitioner has since completed construction of the compound wall. As to whether the petitioner is the owner of the land or the 2nd respondent are matters which this Court would not, ordinarily, adjudicate in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as these are matters to be resolved by way of a suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The remedy, if any, for the petitioner to injunct the 2nd respondent from interfering with his possession, or his carrying on construction, is only by way of an injunction suit and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has already completed construction of the compound wall it is made clear that the 2nd respondent shall not take any steps to have the compound wall demolished except in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claims of the respective parties to be owners of the land in question. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________ 3-2- 2011 asp