THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.977 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who by invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent files this appeal inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10081 of 2009, dated 25-6-2009 dismissing the same filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where he sought for Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned acts on the part of the respondents herein of commencing the work of raising the compound wall around the scheduled property as illegal. Heard Sri Nazir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.S.Murthy and T.S.Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein. The case of the appellant, in brief, as sworn to by him in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that the appellant along with his family members inherited the property in question, which is an old house bearing No.41-1/1 with appurtenant open land admeasuring 5463 sq. yards existing in S.No.386, 386/1 & 2 at Moulali, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad as being successor to late father Mohd. Khaleel-uz-Zaman, who was the original owner and possessor having acquired the same by a Registered Document bearing No.060769, dated 24th Jamadilawal, 1366 fasli i.e., 24-5-1947 and another document dated 28-9-1975. Thus, referring to various title documents and other in its support including the assessment orders made by the municipality, the claim of the appellant in short, is that the appellant and his family members are the absolute owners and possessors of the property in question. The appellant placed reliance on No-Objection Certificate issued by the respondent on 14-3-2006, which states that there is no objection by the relatives in respect of the premises therein provided he constructs boundary wall leaving railway boundary at their cost. The complaint of the appellant was that in spite of such title and possession in their favour and the No-Objection issued by them, the respondents herein have started digging the earth in the open land within the scheduled property for the purpose of raising compound wall and dumped the construction material. Thus, the acts on the part of the respondents though were resisted, did not yield to stop the work, and therefore, the entire action on the part of the respondents in making any construction of compound wall or otherwise are totally illegal and amounts to tress-pass on the land and property belonging to the appellant. Hence, in the writ petition the directions were sought to declare all such actions as illegal, arbitrary and to restrain them from proceeding with any further such action. The learned Judge by taking into account the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents herein where there is a total denial about the right, title and interest including the possession of the appellant, held that the property in question belongs to the Railways and the alleged no-objection certificate issued by them dated 5-3-2006 was totally denied stating that it is a fake and fabricated document. That apart, the relevant Pahani of the year 1972-73 would also show that the land stands in the name of South Central Railways. Thus, by taking into account these assertions and denials from both sides, especially, about the title and possession, the learned Single Judge having found that it would not be for this Court under exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into such controversy of disputed aspects and necessarily having regard to other remedies available under the law it would not be justifiable for the appellant to seek any redressal of such grievance, dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material on record, apart from taking into consideration even the detailed submissions made on the respective claims and further the documents which are sought to be produced in this appeal, we are of the view that certainly here is a case which involves a serious dispute and controversy as to the right, title, interest and possession in respect of the property as claimed from both sides. These are all matters, which necessarily have to be appropriately agitated before the regular Courts under the common law comprehensively or otherwise as may be expedient on the exigency. It is now well established that the judicial review as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would take any nor warrant to take over the jurisdiction vested in such common law Courts. The power of this Court is very much restricted and it has to be considered only from the parameters as laid down within which the present question is sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant in these proceedings. Hence, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, leaving open for the appellant to avail all such remedies available under law and necessarily the same to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by these proceedings, we do not find any justification or any warrant to interdict or interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge. There are no merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Dt:6-12-2010 Grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR The P.D Judgment In W.A.No.977 of 2009 Prepared by His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Circulated to His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar for perusal THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR (The order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) W.A.No.977 of 2009 Date: -12-2010