IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23949 of 2006 Between: Dr.Lanka Sunita ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.23949 of 2006 Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents.3 and 4 in demolishing the compound wall and its adjacent three rooms of the petitioner’s house bearing Municipal No.3-6-369/B/38, Road No.1, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, and in taking possession of land in an extent of 313 square yards of 20 feet width and 141 feet length without acquiring the property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for direction to the respondents to restore the land to the petitioner or in the alternative to pay damages to the petitioner by way of compensation. The petitioner claimed that her mother Mrs.Jonnalagadda Varalakshmi, was the owner of house bearing Municipal No.3-6-369/B/38, situated at Street No.1, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, that her mother originally purchased vacant land comprised in plot Nos.1 and 2 in an open auction from Sri Pingali Venkatrama Reddy, Son of Pingali Ramachandra Reddy, through registered sale deed dated 23-03-1959, that she obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and constructed a building and enclosed it with a compound wall and that the said property was gifted by her to the petitioner by way of registered settlement deed dated 21-12-2005. It is averred in the affidavit that taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner, who is living in California, USA, and the old age of her mother, respondents 3 and 4 visited the premises in February, 2006 and directed the petitioner’s mother to surrender a portion of the land for road widening and later they forcibly and illegally took over the land to the extent of 20 feet width and 141 feet length abutting the main road for road widening purposes. With these averments, the present Writ Petition is filed for the aforementioned relief. Respondent No.3-Smt.V.Anuradha, Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, filed a counter-affidavit. It is averred inter alia that house No.3-6-369/B/3/8 (respondent No.3 pointed out that house No.3-6-369/B/38 referred by the petitioner in her affidavit is a mistake) situated at Street No.1, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, falls in Town Survey Nos.51/1 and 51/2, Block-M, Ward-55 of Gaganmahal Village of Himayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, and that the same is Government land as per Town Survey Land Record. It is further averred that in column No.20 of Town Survey Land Record, the property is described as ‘G Abadi’. She also denied the claim of the petitioner that her mother obtained permission for construction of the building and pointed out that the petitioner has not given either the details or filed copy of the permission said to have been granted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is further stated that the Municipal Corporation has taken up road widening from ‘Liberty Junction’ to ‘Narayanguda’ via ‘Himayathnagar’ and an extent of 294.44 square yards out of 717.03 square yards forming part of the above mentioned premises has been affected in road widening and that out of list of 33 properties prepared by the Corporation, 8 properties were identified as Government lands and that notice under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was issued on 30-05-2006 and the same was received by the mother of the petitioner on 03-06-2006 and that on receipt of the notice, she gave letter dated 05-06-2006, whereby she gave her consent along with her husband stating that they have no objection to take over the extent of 299.44 square yards of land for road widening purpose and that she will apply to the Government for regularization of her unauthorized occupation of the balance extent of the land forming part of the said premises. In pursuance of the same, it is averred that respondent No.3 addressed letter to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 06-06-2006 permitting the Corporation to take up the demolition work. Sri Sanjay Jaju, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, at the relevant time, also filed a counter- affidavit in line with the counter filed by respondent No.3. Heard Sri Girikrishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner. From the respective pleadings, it is clear that there is a serious dispute regarding the title of the property. Though the petitioner filed copies of the sale deed and gift deed in support of her contention that title is vested in her, her claim is seriously disputed by the respondents. As pointed out by the respondents, the petitioner, who claimed in her affidavit that her mother obtained building permission for constructing the building, neither furnished the details of the same nor filed a copy of the sanctioned plan. The respondents, as noted above, specifically stated that the mother of the petitioner gave her consent in response to the notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachments Act, 1905. Though the counter-affidavit was filed as far back as 01-03-2007, no reply affidavit has been filed so far controverting the allegations contained in the counter-affidavits of respondents 3 and 4. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the extent of 299.44 square yards of land, forming part of premises bearing No.3-6-399/B/3/8, has already been taken over and used for the purpose of road widening. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy for the petitioner to claim relief, as has been done in this Writ Petition. In view of the seriously disputed issue regarding title of the property, the only appropriate remedy for the petitioner, in my considered view, is to approach the competent civil Court for adjudication of title, before claiming either restoration of the land or compensation in lieu thereof from the respondents. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ___________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY) 21-01-2008 LUR