THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.17441 AND 17449 of 2002 DATED 09.09.2009 W.P.No.17441 of 2002 BETWEEN: Smt.Seeta Devi … Petitioner AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District. … Respondents W.P.No.17449 of 2002 BETWEEN: Smt. Lakshmi Devi … Petitioner AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.17441 AND 17449 of 2002 ORDER: The two writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear them from demolishing property of petitioner. Petitioner in W.P.No.17441 of 2002 had purchased a house site admeasuring 304.5 square yards in survey No.403/1 under registered sale deed, dated 25.08.1980 from Yousuf Ali. Petitioner in W.P.No.17449 of 2002 also purchased similar extent of land under registered sale deed, dated 25.08.1990 from the same vendor. It is alleged that petitioners constructed compound wall and the property is assessed to tax by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which was given number. It is further alleged that Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet, came with demolition squad and attempted to demolish compound wall ignoring the objections raised by petitioners. Therefore, the two writ petitions are filed. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet, filed two separate counters but the contents are the same. It is the case of respondents that the initial survey of Shaikpet village was taken up in 1326 Fasli (1916 AD) and the same was implemented in 1330 Fasli (1920 AD). Survey No.129 admeasuring Acs.3,288.02 guntas was shown as ‘Kancha Tatti Khana’ (Government land). In 1331 Fasli (1921 AD), supplementary sethwar was issued creating survey Nos.129/1 to 129/10. Again in 1346 Fasli (1936 AD), supplementary sethwar was issued re-numbering survey No.129/1 admeasuring Acs.3,094.39 guntas as survey Nos.403 and 404 deleting survey Nos.129/2 to 129/10 by creating new survey Nos.353 to 403. During the period 1337 Fasli (1927 AD) to 1341 Fasli (1931 AD), assignments were made by District Collector, Atraf Balda District, creating new sub divisions. Therefore, revision survey was conducted and completed in 1942. Town survey was conducted and from 1964 to 1971 under Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (the Act, for brevity). A notification was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act for carrying out survey. A notification under Section 13 of the Act was published in A.P.Gazette, dated 06.08.1977 after completing the survey and if anybody is aggrieved by the same, he has to file a civil suit within three years from the date of publication of notification under Section 13 of the act. No person including petitioners filed civil suit and petition schedule land which falls in T.S.No.6/1/2, Block ‘E’, Ward No.10 correlated to survey No.346/1 and old survey No.403 of Shaikpet is classified as Government land. In 1982, an extent of Acs.30.00 out of this survey was allotted to Andhra Pradesh State Non-Resident Indian Investment Corporation Limited (ANRICH) and the land was handed over on 17.12.1982. In addition to this, an extent of Acs.1.01 guntas was allotted to Andhra Pradesh Study Circle. The land claimed by petitioners falls within Acs.1.01 guntas, which was allotted to A.P.Study Circle, and therefore sale deeds relied on by petitioners are bogus. A.P.Study Circle has constructed a compound wall and therefore, the question of first respondent demolishing the compound wall of petitioners does not arise. While denying various other allegations made by petitioners, Mandal Revenue Officer also denies the allegation that compound walls are demolished. The petitioners have not filed reply affidavits denying various counter averments. There is a clear denial that petitioners are in possession of property. It is also stated that the land admeasuring Acs.1.01 guntas was allotted to A.P.Study Circle and the two pieces of lands allegedly purchased by petitioners fall within that area. Further, A.P.Study Circle has already completed compound wall and therefore, the allegation that respondents demolished compound wall is highly improbable. From the narration of the facts above, there is clearly a title dispute between petitioners on one hand and A.P.Study Circle on the other hand. Therefore, this Court cannot not resolve title dispute. If so advised, petitioners may avail common law remedy. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.09.2009 pln