The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.24169 of 2009 Date: 19.09.2011 Between: Smt.C.M.Janakamma and another. ..... Petitioners AND Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Rep. by its Executive Engineer, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.S.Sreenivasa Sarma Counsel for the respondents: Mr.D.Ranganatha Kumar, SC for APHB The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in seeking to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of land, admeasuring 800 square yards in Survey No.9 Part, situated in Venkojipalem, Sector-I, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S.Sreenivasa Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, representing the respondent. The petitioners claim ownership and title over the land referred to above under registered sale deeds. Their grievance is that while enjoying the adjacent property belonging to the respondent, the officials of the respondent have been unlawfully interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the subject land. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent, it is inter alia stated that Sri A.Hanumantha Rao, who filed this Writ Petition claiming to be the GPA holder, is no longer holding authority on behalf of the petitioners, as petitioner No.1 has issued public notice in a telugu daily newspaper viz., Eenadu, on 10-01-1997, regarding the cancellation of the GPA. It is further averred that on the basis of the said GPA, Sri A.Hanumantha Rao has earlier filed O.S.No.1722 of 1997, against the respondent, in the Court of the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Visakhapatnam, for the same relief, which is claimed in the present Writ Petition and that when the cancellation of GPA was brought to the notice of the said Court, he filed I.A.No.1022 of 1997 with a memo to dismiss the suit as not pressed and that accordingly, by judgment and decree, dated 03-09-1997, the said suit was dismissed. It is further alleged that suppressing the said facts, Sri A.Hanumantha Rao filed the present Writ Petition. With regard to the merits of the case, the respondent has claimed absolute ownership and possession over 360 square yards of land in Survey Nos.9/1 and 9/3 of Venkojipalem, Muvvalapalem, having purchased the same from Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short ‘VUDA’) and stated that the land, in respect of which the present Writ Petition is filed, is part of the extent of Ac.10-23 cents and 621 links or Ac.10-10289 square feet of land got acquired by VUDA under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further pleaded that the respondent vide its letter, dated 15-04-1980, requested VUDA to allot a suitable site, by way of out right sale, for construction of its regional office and guest house, in Muvvalapalem and, accordingly, V U D A vide its resolution No.94, dated 25-07-1980, resolved to allot a site, admeasuring 3660 square yards, in survey Nos.9/1 and 9/3 of Venkojipalem Village in Muvvalavanipalem. It is, thus, the pleaded case of the respondent that in pursuance of the said resolution, the land was given to the respondent on payment of a sum of Rs.1,46,400/- to VUDA on 28-10-1981; that thereafter, the respondent has constructed its regional office, on the said site, which was opened in March, 1982; that when the respondent dumped the construction material for the purpose of constructing compound wall around the said site, OS.No.541 of 1994 was filed by the petitioners and the same was decreed on 04-02-1998. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed AS.No.88 of 1998, in the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, which was allowed, by the said Court, and the judgment and decree, dated 04-02-1998, in O.S.No.541 of 1994 was reversed. From the above facts, it is pleaded that the petitioners have, absolutely, no right or title over the property in question and that, in any event, Sri A.Hanumantha Rao has no capacity to represent the petitioners. On the facts noted above, it is quite evident that there is a serious dispute regarding the title over the subject property. The claim of the petitioners’ right of way was rejected by the civil Court in AS.No.88 of 1998 apart from the fact that the suit viz., O.S.No.1722 of 1997, filed in the name of the petitioners for substantially the same relief, was dismissed as withdrawn. In the light of this uncontroverted facts, it is not possible for this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus against the respondent. If the petitioners or their purported GPA holder- Sri A.Hanumantha Rao are aggrieved by the interference of the respondent, the only remedy open to them is to approach the competent civil Court and assert their right in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.No.3949 of 2010, WPMP.Nos.31420 of 2009 and 26092 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 19th September, 2011 LUR