THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21846 of 2011 Date: 08.08.2011 Between: Thummala Daka Reddy … Petitioner and The Govt. of A.P. rep. By its Prl. Secretary, Department of Panchayatraj, A.P. Secretariat and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No. 21846 of 2011 ORAL ORDER The cause projected in the Writ Petition is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The petitioner claims that he and respondent No. 6 are brothers and sons of late T. Narasimha Reddy. According to him, they have acquired the property bearing House No. 1-87 admeasuring 0-08 gts. situated at Pownoor village of Jaipur mandal, Adilabad District by inheritance and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is the complaint of the petitioner that suppressing the fact that he is a joint owner, his brother i.e. 6th respondent is trying to alienate the property with the help of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 without his consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 20.6.2011 to his brother i.e. respondent No.6 herein not to alienate the property and calling upon the Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5 not to interfere and make any constructions on the said land. The 6th respondent is stated to have issued a reply dated 4.7.2011 disputing the joint ownership and possession of the land. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to declare the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in interfering with the alleged joint possession of the property and also construction of Panchayat building. The writ petition is untenable - firstly for the reason that the petitioner has not filed any material to show prima facie that he is the joint owner and possessor of the subject property. Secondly, even according to the petitioner, the 6th respondent has not alienated the said property in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, his complaint as to the construction of Panchayat building is without any basis. Nextly, petitioner has also not filed any material nor is able to show that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. 1) Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayatraj, A.P., 2) District Collector, Adilabad District, 3) District Panchayath Officer, Adilabad District, 4) Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj Department, Mancherial and 5) Tahsildar, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District are interfering with his possession. The petitioner has also not averred anything as to how the said officers are interfering with his possession. Even though an allegation is made that a building is sought to be constructed for the purpose of Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has not even impleaded the Gram Panchayat as respondent. On a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, besides the above aspects, the dispute as to the claim of the petitioner vis-à- vis the claim of the 6th respondent is of civil nature. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition does not deserve any consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, if so desires may invoke a remedy against the 6th respondent before an appropriate Civil Court. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 8.8.2011 N.B. C.C. in one week. B.O. CHV