The availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under the relevant Act and the inability of the High Court to adjudicate disputed questions of facts in a writ petition.

JUDGMENT

1. The grievance of the petitioner is issuance of proceedings by respondent no.8 in D.Dis.No.B/1035/2022 dtd. 12/10/2022 in favour of respondent no.12 and proceedings in D.Dis.No.B/1036/2022 dtd. 12/10/2022 in favour of respondent no.13 in respect of Ac.4-06 cents in Survey No.1574/1 and Ac.4.44 cents in Survey No.1577/1A1 and Ac.4-06 cents in Survey No.1574/2 respectively ordering conversion of the said lands from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and consequential interference of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 with the enjoyment of the petitioner and his sister in respect of the subject land and non consideration of the representation dtd. 5/1/2023 by respondent no.4.

2. Heard Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent nos.1 & 7 to 9, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent nos.2 to 6 and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.12 & 13.

3. Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit further submitted that the subject properties were the absolute properties of the petitioner's father and during his lifetime he executed will bequeathing lands in favour of the petitioner, his sisters and his younger brother, who is arrayed as respondent no.10. The said will came into force consequent to death of petitioner's father and the petitioner and his sisters came into possession of the properties and have been enjoying them. While so, Koneru Lakshmamma, who is daughter of petitioner's father through his first wife filed suit in O.S.No.20 of 1985 and the same was allowed and a preliminary decree was passed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and others filed appeal suit vide A.S.No.3 of 1992 and the said appeal suit was allowed. Assailing the same, the said Koneru Lakshmamma filed second appeal vide S.A.No.108 of 2002 and the same is pending on the file of this Court. While so, the respondent no.10 and 11 in collusion with respondent nos. 12 and 13 created General Power of Attorney deeds in respect of the subject lands. Pursuantly, respondent nos.12 and 13 filed suit for specific performance vide O.S.No.1 of 2019 obtained collusive decree and obtained registered sale deed in respect of the subject lands through process of Court. Later, the respondent nos. 12 and 13 on the strength of the sale deeds applied for conversion of subject lands from agriculture to nonagricultural purpose and accordingly, the 8th respondent on the recommendations of the 9th respondent passed the impugned proceedings. The action of respondent nos. 5 and 6 in interfering with possession of the petitioner and his sisters and the inaction of the respondent no.4 in not acting upon representation of petitioner dtd. 5/1/2023 is highly illegal and against law. Hence, this writ petition is filed and prayed to allow the same.

4. Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on counter, submitted that upon the applications filed by respondent nos. 12 and 13 for sub division of the land as ;they intend to convert the land for non-agricultural purpose, a field enquiry was conducted and after confirming their possession and enjoyment along with registered documents in their favour, the 9th respondent-Tahsildar has ordered for sub division. Thereafter, the respondent nos. 12 and 13 have applied for conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose. Pursuantly, the 8th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has visited the lands and after satisfying himself with the material evidence, possession and enjoyment of the applicants and after ensuring that no objections were received from anybody and there are no order or orders against the right of the applicants, had issued the conversion proceedings. There is no illegality or procedural irregularity in issuing the proceedings. There are no merits in the writ petition. If at all the petitioner has