HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION NO. 12154 OF 2005 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 2 . The petitioner prays for Mandamus declaring auction notice issued by the first respondent and published in Eenadu newspaper dated 27.5.2005 in so far as the notice related to Ac. 1.36 Guntas in S.No. 205 situated at Chandanagar Village, Sarilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also Memo No. Lc2/424/2005 dated 4.6.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac. 1.36 guntas in S.No. 205 of Chandanagar Village, Sarilingampaly, R.R. District. In support of his claim, the petitioner relies upon a few revenue extracts and also alleged patta issued in favour of the petitioner’s father. The petitioner claims to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the petition land. 4. At the time of hearing for admission, the respondent has placed before the Court the following instructions: “The brief facts of the case are that as per revenue record the land S.No. 205 measuring 1.36 acres situated at Chandanagar Village is classified as Kharij Khatha Government land. On verification of pahanies of the village it is found that the name of Madasu Manikyam was recorded as cultivator for an extent of 1.00 Ac in Sesala Pahani (1955-56 to 1957-58) and only 0.04 Guntas was recorded during the year 1974-75. But no Assignment was made in favour of the father of the petitioner and no rytwari patta was issued in the year 1963-64. As per the pahani for the year 1954-55 to 2000- 01 the land is recorded as Govt land, in pattadar Col. No. 12. On verification of the Faisal Patties the name of the Writ Petitioner was recorded in B-Memo against S.No. 205 Govt Land during the year 1975-76 to 1978-79, 1989-90 to 1992 and Sivai Zamabandi was imposed. From 1992 onwards the land is fallow and nobody is in possession and cultivation of the land. In the year 2000 this land was got fenced to protect from illegal occupants and it is under Govt Custody. Thus it is free from illegal occupation and Cultivation. Hence it is proposed for Auction for an area of 0.30 Gts out of total area of 1.36 in Sy.No. 205 of Chandanagar village. Further it is submitted that the petitioner filed petition for allotment of land before the Collector on 30.5.2005 and it was rejected vide memo No. Lc/424/05 dt. 4.6.2005 as his claim is without proper justification. The Chandanagar Village comes under ban area on assignment of land ot the land less poor under G.O.Ms. No. 1409. In view of the above facts the request of the petitioner is not justifiable and may be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 5. The respondent was directed by this Court through interim order dated 13.6.2005 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 31.5.2005 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the interim order. Through impugned Memo dated 4.6.2005 in a very unusual brief expression the representation is rejected. Be that as it may, the rejection does not contain a reason or semblance of application of mind. Notwithstanding the above observation, this Court is conscious that in view of the stand placed before the Court through instructions dated 13.6.2005 the dispute between the parties relates to question of title and the same is required to be decided by the competent Civil Court in a properly instituted suit or proceeding. This Court cannot examine the disputed questions of fact more particularly on the title when the claims are divergent and required to be considered on the evidence placed by the respective parties. It is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in a properly constituted suit or proceeding. 6. By giving above liberty, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7 . As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE S.V. BHATT DATE: 16.10.2014 KA