THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.802 OF 2010 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed this appeal against the order dated 25.10.2010, dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellants are in illegal occupation of railway property in Vijayawada. They filed the writ petition claiming to be in long occupation, admittedly unauthorized, of the property and apprehending their eviction. They also pleaded in the writ petition that the revenue establishment of the State must assign them suitable lands and till such time, the Estate Officer, should not proceed against them for their eviction. 3. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge rightly observed that the petitioners failed to plead any right to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and squatted on public property without any authority therefor. However, the learned single Judge directed the 1st respondent to grant time to the writ petitioners, up to 8.11.2010 to vacate the premises of the South Central Railway, occupied by them, so as to retrieve whatever valuables they consider proper, and observed that if they do not do so by the said date, the Railway authorities would be at liberty to evict them in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the order does not recognize the prescriptive title obtained by the appellants on account of their long occupation of the property. 5. Proceedings under Article 226 are inappropriate to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, as to whether the appellants have perfected their title over the property of the South Central Railway by adverse possession as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Any such determination is more properly pursued before a civil court of competent jurisdiction in a suit for declaration of title, and not under Article 226. 6. It also requires to be noticed that the writ petitioners have failed to implead the South Central Railway or the Railways, which is the owner of the property and have impleaded only the Estates Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager, as the sole respondent, representing the Railways. The writ petition was also therefore liable to be rejected for non-joinder of proper and necessary party. 7. In any event, no cause for interference is made out. The appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. 8. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ GODA RAGHURAM,J -------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:02.11.2010 AVS