HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION Nos. 32545 of 2010 and 14877 OF 2011 . DATED 27th June, 2011 BETWEEN Gumpenapalli Sulochana …Petitioner in both WPs. And The District Collector & Agent to Government. Khammam District and ors …..Respondents in WP.No. 32545 of 2010. The Superintendent of Police,Khammam, Khammam District and ors ….Respondents in WP. No. 14877 of 2011 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION Nos. 32545 of 2010 and 14877 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: In as much as the petitioner, the subject matter and most of the respondents in both these writ petitions are same, and, similar questions of law and fact are involved, they can be disposed of by way of this common order. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased land admeasuring in an extent of Ac.11.36 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.249/1 and 250 of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District, under agreement of sale dated 29.11.2001 from one Ramachandra Rao, which is the power of attorney holder of one Toletti Rama Rao, who is the fourth respondent herein. It is stated that the vendor having received the entire sale consideration, she was put in possession of the agreement schedule property and has been cultivating the said land by raising various crops. While so, the fourth respondent instituted a suit in O.S.No.242 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, against the petitioner and her mother- in-law seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his alleged possession of the suit schedule property and an interlocutory application was also filed along with the suit seeking temporary injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that she resisted the suit by filing a detailed written statement. Initially, the trial Court granted status quo order but the suit was withdrawn by the fourth respondent on 26.10.2010 after substantial evidence was adduced therein. While things stood thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the officials of the third respondent threatened to evict her from the land in question on the basis of the orders of this Court. At this stage, she made enquiries as to in what case this Court passed orders which made the third respondent to threaten her. In that process, she came to know that the fourth respondent earlier instituted a suit in O.S.No.49 of 1999 against the respondents 5 to 8 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the land in question and the said suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, A.S.No.15 of 2005 was preferred on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, which was resulted in dismissal. Aggrieved thereby, Second Appeal No.162 of 2007 was filed before this Court, which ended in compromise between the parties thereto. It is the case of the petitioner that in all these proceedings she was not made a party. On the basis of this order, when she was evicted to dispossess from the land in question, she filed W.P.No.32545 of 2010 before this Court. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order directing official respondents 1 to 3 therein not interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8 and not to take steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said interim order of this Court, the power of attorney holder of the fourth respondent lodged a false criminal complaint on 17.02.2011 under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC before the Station House Officer, Burgampahad Police Station, Khammam District, the second respondent in W.P.No.14877 of 2011, as a counter blast to the abovesaid writ petition. As respondents 4 to 7 are influencing the police for the arrest of the petitioner and also trying to dispossess her from the land in question, she obtained anticipatory bail on 08.03.2011 from the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. That being so, respondents 5 to 7 along with the police force of the second respondent, entered into the land in question whereat the petitioner has been living with her family and demolished a part of the compound wall of her house, took away the electric motor and destroyed the bore well existing on the said land. It is stated that although the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, the police are interfering in the matter and harassing the petitioner by exceeding their jurisdiction and interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner. Challenging this action, W.P.No.14877 of 2011 is filed. Counter affidavits are filed in both the writ petitions on behalf of respondents 4 to 7. While denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is averred that paternal grandfather, late Gandla Venkatappaiah, of respondents 5 to 7 was the pattedar, owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.17.23 guntas i.e. Ac.6.38 guntas in Sy.No.249/1, Ac.10.25 guntas in Sy.No.250 of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. Thereafter, the said land was succeeded by late Papaiah, the father of respondents 5 to 7. After his demise, respondents 5 to 7 succeeded to the said land. It is stated that the petitioner did not purchase the land in an extent of Ac.11.36 guntas out of the said land under the alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.2001 from one Ramachandra Rao who is the power of attorney of the fourth respondent and that she is not in possession of the said land. It is further averred that the pahanies filed along with W.P.No.32545 of 2010 are forged and created documents as they were issued by the revenue officials. It is their case that in the year 2005 the Mandal Revenue Officer recorded the statements of the alleged scribe, attestor and power of attorney holder of the fourth respondent who stated that their signatures were forged on the alleged agreement of sale and that the power of attorney holder of the fourth respondent filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Burgampahad P.S. and the same was registered as Crime No.18 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC. It is also stated that on the basis of the complaint given by the third respondent Tahsildar stating that the pahanies produced by the petitioner herein are not tallying with the signatures of the revenue officials, the same was registered as Crime No.62 of 2011 also for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 468 of the IPC. It is their further case that latest pahanies show that they are the owners and possessors of the said land after having compromised in Second Appeal No.162 of 2007 before this Court. It is therefore averred that they are in possession of the land in question and there is no question of their pressurizing the second respondent police and the third respondent Tahsildar to evict the petitioner from the land in question as she is not in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is ultimately averred that there is no civil dispute between the petitioner and them and that it is for the petitioner to approach a civil court for recovery of possession from us if she has any legal right over the land in question. Respondents 4 to 7 in W.P.No.32545 of 2010 filed vacate stay petition in W.V.M.P.No.830 of 2011 seeking to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 24.12.2010 in W.P.No.32545 of 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the allegations contained in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue, Home and Social Welfare for the official respondents and Sri M.Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7. Perused the case files and material placed on record. A perusal of the record obviously shows that there appears to be a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8 as to the land admeasuring Ac.11.36 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.249/1 and 250 of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam. Ex facie, having taken note of the same, this Court in W.P.No.32545 of 2010 initially granted interim order on 24.12.2010 directing respondents 1 to 3 therein not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 8 therein and not to take any steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question. It is clear from the record that the petitioner contested the suit in O.S.No.242 of 2005 instituted by the fourth respondent on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem but the same was withdrawn by the fourth respondent after substantial evidence was allowed to be adduced therein. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the other suit in O.S.No.49 of 1999 instituted by the fourth respondent against respondents 5 to 8 seeking perpetual injunction which was dismissed against which A.S.No.15 of 2005 was preferred before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, which too ended in dismissal and aggrieved thereby, Second Appeal No.162 of 2007 was filed before this Court, which resulted in compromise between the parties. According to the petitioner herself, she is not a party to the above proceedings. For the reasons best known to her, she did not approach the competent Civil Court to work out her remedies. However, she filed the present writ petitions one after another. In Writ Petition No.32545 of 2010, she could succeed to obtain an interim order as stated supra. Even thereafter, she did not make any attempt to approach the competent civil Court seeking the necessary relief in the matter. On the other hand, when the interim order granted by this Court on 24.12.2010 in W.P.No.32545 of 2010 is extant, in view of the alleged threatening by the second and third respondents revenue and police authorities to evict her from the land in question she again filed the other Writ Petition W.P.No.14877 of 2011. It may be noticed at this stage that it is not comprehensible as to why the petitioner did not file a contempt case against the so-called respondents if it is her case that despite the interim order of this Court, the second and third respondents threatened to evict her from the land in question and as to why she again filed another writ petition, more particularly the former writ petition is still pending adjudication before this Court. The petitioner could have well approached the competent Civil Court seeking necessary relief at any time before filing of the former writ petition or at least immediately after obtaining interim order therein but startlingly she did not do so. As the pleadings on either side inter alia reveal that there appears to be a civil dispute prima facie between the petitioner and the respondents 7 to 8, this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the disputed questions of fact. These disputed questions cannot be decided just on affidavits and these are matters which require to be tried in a regular civil proceeding. Further, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contradistinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute and a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons. This Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly [See Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 61]. Keeping the aforestated principles in mind and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, I do not find any merit in both the writ petitions which are liable to be dismissed. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, interim order dated 24.12.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32545 of 2010 shall stand vacated and W.V.M.P.No.830 of 2011 in W.P.No.32545 of 2010 is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent civil Court, if she is so advised, for redressal of her grievance, if any. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 27TH June, 2011. Msnro