IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.4270 of 2009 Between: M. Nagamani W/o. Late M. Raja Reddy R/o.Sai Enclave, Near SBH Colony, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Cantonment Board, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not returning land admeasuring 220 sq. yards comprised in Sy.Nos.96 to 99 (Viz. 96/A, 96/C, 97/B, 98/B and 99/B) situated at Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently direct the respondent to return the same forthwith and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NANCHARI JEEVAN Counsel for the Respondent: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.4270 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides. The case of the petitioner is that her husband late M. Raja Reddy, during his lifetime, sold an extent of Ac.0-56 gts. in Sy.Nos.96 to 99 (viz. 96/A, 96/C, 97/B, 98/B and 99/B) situated at Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, under a registered sale deed dated 20.12.1996 to M/s. Deccan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad. Thereafter, the said Society submitted a layout to the respondent- Cantonment Board for approval, since the aforesaid land comes within the jurisdiction of the respondent Board. The respondent Board, while sanctioning layout, found an extent of 220 sq. yards in excess of Ac.0-56 gts. for which the layout has been submitted. The petitioner contends that since her husband sold only Ac.0-56 gts. to the Society, she is entitled for the said 220 sq. yards, which was found excess by the respondent Board, and therefore she submitted a representation to the respondent Board on 08.09.2008 requesting to return the said land to her, but the same has not been acted upon till date. Except the copy of the representation dated 08.09.2008, there is no other material on record to show that there is any transaction between the husband of the petitioner and the said Deccan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which is not made a party to this writ petition, and also to show that the possession of the alleged excess land of 220 sq. yards was taken over by the respondent Board. The matter arises out of a private transaction between the alleged Society and the petitioner and, hence, the petitioner has to agitate her rights, if any, in appropriate civil proceedings, but the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 3rd March, 2009 IBL