IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 382 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/08/2007 in WP NO : 1278 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Md. Kannusuddin, S/o. Late Wazeeruddin, R/o. 17-2-870/43/A, Madannapet, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Goshamahal , Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure CorporationLtd. (APIIC), Parishrama Bhavan, 6th floor, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2007, dated 9-8- 2007 has been challenged in this appeal. The appellant-original petitioner has prayed for a declaration to the effect that the land in question be held to be his land and his possession be not disturbed by the respondents-Government authorities. After hearing the learned Advocate, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition by observing that disputed questions of fact were involved in the petition. It has been observed by the learned single Judge that some documents pertaining to some revenue records might have been false or bogus. Looking to the aforestated facts and in view of the fact that even the possession of the appellant was in doubt, the learned single Judge has dismissed the petition. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties. Upon going through the impugned judgment delivered by the learned single Judge and upon hearing the learned Advocate, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge has committed any error while rejecting the petition for the reason that disputed questions of fact are involved in the petition. The proper course would be to file a civil suit for establishing the ownership and possession. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th April, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies