HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.10132 of 2009 Date: June 20, 2011 Between: Ashok Singh, S/o.late Lakhan Singh Hazari, aged 59 years, Occ:business, R/o.13-1- 575, Dilawar Gunj, Mangalhat, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad … Petitioner And The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards bearing municipal No.13-1-571/B/A, situated at Dilawar Gunj, Mangalhat, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and consequential directions to the respondents not to interfere. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land and respondents 4 to 19 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.7134 of 2001 on the file of the XIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court against him and others for injunction alleging that they are the owners and possessors of land covered by Sy.No.5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 7, 9/1 and 9/2 of Razdarkhanpet village, Asifnagar Mandal, which includes 1000 sq. yards of land which is in possession of the petitioner. It is stated that the said suit was dismissed and thereupon an appeal was filed vide A.S.No.71 of 2004, which was allowed in part granting injunction with regard to some portion of land, excluding the 1000 sq. yards of land which is in possession of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though respondents 1 and 3 do not have any authority or jurisdiction they are interfering with his possession over the said 1000 sq. yards of land. Respondent No.3-Station House Officer, Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the land covered by Sy.Nos.5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 7 and 9/1 of Razdarkhanpet village is correlated to T.S.Nos.1/1 to 12 and 21 to 95 in Block H Ward-31, T.S.Nos.1 to 13 in Block-J, Ward-31 and T.S.Nos.1,2,3/1 and 5/1 in Block-G, Ward No.31. It is stated that the total extent of land is Ac.46.25 guntas and originally the classification of the land in Sy.Nos.5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 7, 9/1 and 9/2 in revenue records is Karij Khata Sarkari. It is further stated that a town survey was conducted under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 during the period 1964-65 and a notification was issued under Section 6(1) of the said Act and after completing the survey, further notification was published under Section 13 of the Act. It is also stated that, in the suit filed by the unofficial respondents herein, Government is not party and such proceedings are not binding on the Government. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondents 4 to 19 that the land which is claimed by the petitioner is a part of the land claimed in the suit which is already decreed by the lower appellate Court; in spite of the same, the petitioner is trying to make a false claim. It is to be noted that the relief sought for in the present writ petition is in the nature of orders of injunction, against respondents 1 and 3. The relief so sought is on the premise that the petitioner is in possession of the land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards, but, in the counter-affidavit, title and possession of the petitioner over the said land is denied. It is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards which the petitioner claims to be in possession is a part of Ac.46.25 guntas covered by T.S.Nos. 1 to 13 in Block-J, Ward-31 and T.S.Nos.1,2,3/1 and 5/1 in Block-G, Ward No.31, which corresponds to Sy.Nos.5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 7 and 9/1 of Razdarkhanpet village. In view of the said categorical stand of the third respondent in the counter-affidavit, there appears a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the property in question. Such disputes relating to title and possession can only be resolved only after recording of evidence. It is not possible for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to go into such disputes. Although unofficial respondents claim that the property in question belongs to them, it is not necessary to go into such claim as much as the very relief sought by the petitioner is only against respondents 1 to 3. For the foregoing reasons, petitioner cannot be granted the relief prayed for. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner claims title and possession over the property in question, this order will not preclude him from approaching the competent civil court seeking appropriate relief. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 20, 2011 MRR