THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5939 of 2011 Date:09.03.2011 Between: K. Babamma and others ..... Petitioners AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C. Raghu Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri P. Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, standing counsel for Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession of the property admeasuring 300 sq. yards bearing municipal No.7-1- 282 of Bahalool Khan Guda, Balkampet, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. From the pleadings of the petitioners, it is evident that when respondent No.2 sought to interfere with his possession of the property, the father of the petitioners filed O.S.No.2518 of 2000 in the Court of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction, that the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.07.2010 and that aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, which is stated to be pending. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 claiming through respondent No.2 has started interfering with the petitioners’ possession and been attempting to raise a compound wall over the said property. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is purely civil in nature and their father has rightly invoked the common law remedy by filing a civil suit in which he has failed to get any relief against respondent No.2 through which respondent No.3 is allegedly claiming its right over the property in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said decree and judgment in the civil suit is stated to be pending. In the light of these facts, I do not find any reason why the petitioners have not sought for appropriate relief either in the pending civil proceedings or by instituting a fresh proceeding instead of invoking the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As this Court cannot adjudicate upon the disputed questions of title and possession, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7383 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th March, 2011 GHN