THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.823 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is D.K.Colony Association, Shivajinagar and it is represented by its Vice President. The case of the petitioner – Association is that its members, who are about forty in number, have purchased small extents of land from one Dr.Chandra Mohan and have constructed houses and are living therein. Their sale deeds and agreements of sale show that the plots fall in Sy.No.22 of Amjadowla village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad. But as per the revenue records, the said survey number is a Government land covered by muslim graveyard. In the year 1997, at the instance of its vendor - Dr.Chandra Mohan, survey was conducted and it was found that the plots in their possession fall in Sy.No.225 of Amjadowla (v), which is admittedly a private land. The further case of the petitioner is that on the one hand, the Government is claiming the land in Sy.No.225 of Amjadowala village, as Government land, whereas the respondents 5 and 6 herein, are claming the said land to be their land. The case of the petitioner is that its vendor actually sold the land in Sy.No.225, but mentioned in their sale deeds and in agreements of sale as Sy.No.22. The grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents 1 to 4 are interfering with their possession and are threatening to dispossess them. Therefore, the petitioner – Association is seeking a direction to the respondents to follow the procedure in accordance with law for interfering with their possession. 3. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit and stated inter alia that the land in Sy.No.225 is the subject matter of the partition suit between the family members of the 6th respondent before this court in C.S.No.18/1958 and subsequently, owing to the compromise before the Apex Court in 1972, the said property has fallen to the share of the 6th respondent and further the name of the brother of the 6th respondent was shown in kasra pahani in the year 1954-55. As third parties are interfering with the possession, the 6th respondent was constrained to flue suit in O.S.No.394/1994 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunction against the vendor of the members of the petitioner’s – Association and third parties. The defendants therein took the plea that they purchased the land from one D. Chandra Mohan. The modus operendi of the said Chandramoham is to execute documents in Sy.No.22, which is a Government land and show possession in Sy.No.225. The suit in O.S.No.394/1994 was dismissed and challenging the same, the 6th respondent preferred appeal in A.S.No.557/2003 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was allowed on 18.7.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred second appeal before this court in S.A.No.1193/2005 and no interim orders were passed and the same is pending. The third party purchasers from Dr.Chandra Mohan earlier filed writ petitions before this court in W.P.Nos.10574/2001, 28609/2003,5460/2004 and all of them ended in dismissal. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 4. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the official respondents. 5. From the material on record it could be seen that the case of the petitioners’- Association is that they purchased the land from Dr.Chandramohan and as per the sale deeds and also the agreements of sale, the document is executed for Sy.No.22 and the possession is shown in Sy.No.225. Therefore, their alleged possession over Sy.No.225 is without any basis. Further, the land in question is the subject matter in the suit in O.S.No.394/1994 and challenging the order of dismissal, 6th respondent filed appeal in A.S.No.557/2003 and by order dated 18.7.2005 the same was allowed. The suit in O.S.No.394/1999 is filed against the vendor of the petitioner – Association i.e., Chandamohan and in A.S.No.557/2003 permanent injunction is granted against him. In the second appeal, filed challenging the judgment in first appeal, no interim orders are passed. 6. The above material on record goes to show that there are disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be decided under the writ jurisdiction and the matter is already sub judice before this court in the second appeal. The petitioner – Association cannot seek to establish possession by filing the present writ petition. 7. Further, when the purchasers from the vendor of the petitioner – Association Chandra Mohan filed writ petitions before this court seeking protection from interfering with the official respondents, as referred to supra, this court dismissed all the writ petitions on the ground of involvement of disputed questions of fact. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------ 23—07—2010