THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITOIN NO.8841 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for, in this Writ Petition, is to declare the action of the respondents in attempting to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from his land of an extent of Ac.4.00 cts (on ground Ac.3.51 cts covered by Sy. No.70/P(T.D. No.2139) of Gandigundam village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as arbitrary and illegal. It is the petitioner’s case that the application filed by the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent to cancel the petitioner’s pattedar passbooks and title deeds is still pending, despite which he was being forcibly dispossessed. In the counter-affidavit now filed by the Tahsildar, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the land in question is not Government land and, as such, the question of respondents 1 and 2 entering into the subject land, (covered by Sy. No.70/1 of Gandigundam village), does not arise. They would further state that respondents 1 to 3 have never interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Sri P. Roy Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 to 7 would submit that, under the guise of an interim order, the petitioner has sought to interfere with the possession of respondents 4 to 7 over the subject land though respondents 4 to 7 are in possession thereof, and not the petitioner herein; and, since the dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 to 7 is in the private law realm, the remedy available to the petitioner is not by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court for an injunction. I find considerable force in the said submission. It may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the rival claims of possession over the subject land. As the land does not belong to the Government and, since it is now stated by the Tahsildar that they are not interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the subject lands, the remedy, if any, for the petitioner (in case he is in possession) to ensure that respondents 3 to 8 do not interfere therewith is only by way of a civil suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, and not by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of a civil suit the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival claims, of the petitioner and the respondent, regarding possession over the subject lands. No costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 29.11.2011 MRKR