IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13881 of 2010 Between: P. Soubhagyam … Petitioner And The Tahsildar & M.R.O., G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Y. Rama Rao Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13881 of 2010 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.0.13 ½ cents in R.S.No.73/1A of Gaddamanugu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the abovementioned land, which is hereinafter referred to as the “subject land”, is owned by her having purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 16.05.2000, from the original pattadar Sri Koyya Seshaiah. The petitioner pleaded that after the said purchase, the respondent has acquired an extent of Ac.0.46 cents belonging to her vendor situated in the same R.S.No.73/1A towards house sites for weaker sections and that the said survey number comprises total extent of Ac.2.13 cents out of which she has purchased Ac.0.13 ½ cents. The cause of action for filing the present Writ Petition was the alleged interference of the respondent and his subordinate staﬀ with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the subject land on the ground that the said property was acquired. According to the petitioner, Ac.0.46 cents of the property, which was acquired, does not form part of the subject land. A detailed counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondent, wherein it is inter alia averred that an extent of Ac.3.10 cents in R.S.Nos.73/1A and 73/2A of Gaddamanugu Village of G.Konduru Mandal, was acquired under Award No.9 of 2001, dated 26.05.2001, that a layout was prepared sub-dividing the acquired land as house site plots and that the same were allotted to 93 beneﬁciaries. When the petitioner started obstructing the revenue authorities stating that she is the title holder of Ac.0.13 ½ cents in R.S.No.73/1A, she was informed that the land was already acquired and that the compensation amount was deposited in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. It is further averred that a perusal of the record revealed that at the time of submitting the proposals for acquisition of land in R.S.Nos.73/1A and 73/2A, the names of two persons, namely; Koyya Seshaiah and Avuluri Sura Reddy and Rami Reddy were shown as pattadars and enjoyers in respect of Ac.0.46 cents in R.S.No.73/1A and Ac.2.64 cents in R.S.No.73/2A respectively. That even though the petitioner has purchased Ac.0.13 ½ cents of the subject land from Koyya Seshaiah, as mutation was not carried out, her name is not shown in the land acquisition proceedings. At the hearing, Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous eﬀorts to convince this Court that the land acquired by the respondent is different from the subject land. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, however, strongly opposed this contention and stated that the subject land forms part of the acquired land. In my opinion, this is a serious disputed fact, which needs to be resolved only by the competent civil Court on the basis of the evidence that may be placed by both the parties. It is trite that this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not decide such disputed questions of fact. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate reliefs. As a sequel, interim order, dated 18.06.2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.17470 of 2010 is dismissed and WVMP.No.3801 of 2011 is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.12.2011 ES