IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 396 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/04/2007 in WP NO : 5663 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Shahzadi begum W/o Syed Sharfuddin Saheb, R/o D. No. 17-3-198/2/121m Sadat nagar, Yakuthpura, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chief General Manager, Hyderabad, Zone, APCPDCL., Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL., Santhoshnagar, Charminar mandal, Hyderabad. 3. Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan s/o Miakhan, aged about 50 years, MLA of Yakutpura Assembly constituency r/o 20-4-104/A, Charminar Bus stand, Panchmohalla, Hyderabad (added as per court order dated 28-8-2007 in W.A.M.P.No.1381 of 2007) 4. The Collector, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (impleaded as per court ordr dt. 17-12-2007 .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by a common order passed in W.P.No.5663 and 7350 of 2007, dated 25-4-2007 the present appellant-original petitioner had approached this Court. The issue involved in the petition was with regard to the ownership as well as the possession of the land in question. The case of the appellant-petitioner before the learned single Judge was that he was in possession of the land in question whereas, according to the learned Government Pleader, the appellant-petitioner was not in possession of the land in question and it belongs to the Government. Looking to the disputed questions of fact involved in the petition, the learned single Judge rejected the petition by observing that the proper course open to the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court for getting his right decided. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. As the petition involved disputed questions of fact, it is not for this Court to decide whether the appellant-petitioner is the owner or in occupation of the land in question. We do not see any substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is needless to say that it is open for the appellant-petitioner to approach the Civil Court to get his right, if any, determined. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 19th February, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies