THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12867 OF 1999 DATED: -03-2008 BETWEEN A. Krishna Prasad and another. …PETITIONERS AND The Government of AP and two others. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: As the main counsel Mr. A. Ramanarayana died, notice was issued to the parties. The notices sent to both petitioners were returned with an endorsement that the first petitioner not claimed and the second petitioner left. Two other counsels on the record did not appear and as the notice sent to the first petition was not claimed, I am of the opinion that no further steps are required to be taken for hearing the writ petition, as it cannot be said that the petitioners had no knowledge about the demise of their main counsel and the pendency of the writ petition on the file of this Court. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that their father late A. Narayana Prasad purchased an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas along with four buildings existing thereon bearing Municipal Door Nos.8-3-218, 8-3-219, 8-3-220 and 8-3-221 situated at Yousufguda under a Registered Sale Deed dated 25.07.1961 form one Fatima Begum W/o. Khazi Hamidul Haq. The said land was covered by Mazi No.25, which was the patta land of Fatima Begum and the said land was initially taken for the “Royal Air Force” but after the World War the private lands along with the said lands were handed over to the Government of India which in turn handed over to the Government of Hyderabad. The said land has been held by the Government of Hyderabad and subsequently by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on a monthly rental of Rs.18/-. Ever since the date of purchase by the petitioners no rent has been paid, therefore, the petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in continuing to be in possession of their land to an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas in Sy.No.67 of Yousufguda Village, Hyderabad District without either acquiring it or paying rentals as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the land in Sy.No.67 admeasuring Ac.1.33 guntas is recorded as Government land in the revenue records and the said land was utilized for public purpose and it is not a patta land. It is further stated that similar claims were made in respect of the said property and a suit filed by one Yadaiah in O.S.No.21 of 1983 was dismissed on 19.06.1987; WP.No.12367 of 1988 filed by one Ramanand Petwal ad others claiming the said land was also dismissed on 28.10.1994 and another WP.No.9170 of 1999 filed by one Srinivas Rao was also dismissed on 06.10.1999. It is further stated that there are no such house numbers in Sy.No.67 and the land claimed by the petitioners is in Sy.No.68 but not in Sy.No.67, which is a Government land but not the private land. The identity of the land and existence of the structures is disputed. 4. I have perused the records. According to the sale deed relied on by the petitioners dated 25.07.1961 purchased by the father of the petitioners, it relates to the land in Sy.No.68 measuring Ac.1.37 guntas with the aforesaid municipal numbers but not in Sy.No.67; but the petitioners claim the property in Sy.No.67 but not in Sy.No.68. Therefore, the relief claimed based on the sale deed itself is not maintainable as the sale deed relates to the land in Sy.No.68 but not in Sy.No.67. However, the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March , 2008 DSK