THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in preventing and curbing the fraudulent sale and encroachment of the Petitioner’s land in Survey Nos. 1082 and 1089 of Balajinagar, Kukatpally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to conduct a thorough enquiry through the Revenue and Police authorities, inspect the field and revenue records, and identify and demarcate the Petitioner’s rightful share and pas such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. It is stated that in the year 1986, the petitioner along with other co-sharers instituted a suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No.238 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District seeking division of ancestral properties admeasuring to an extent of Acs. 5.10 guntas in Survey Nos.1082 and 1089, situated at Kukatpally Vilalge, Balanagar Mandal (presently Kukatpally Mandal), Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the said suit was amicably compromised vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.1995 and pursuant to the said compromise, the petitioner was allotted property admeasuring 1048 square yards in Survey Nos.1082 and 1089, situated at Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal (presently Kukatpally Mandal), Medchal-Malkajgiri District (for short, ‘subject property’). It is further stated that prior to the compromise decree, the petitioner had executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 06.12.1994 vide Document No.104 of 1994 in favour of Sri N.Rajaiah and Sri N.Laxminarayana to deal with the subject property, but the said GPA was cancelled through a registered document bearing No.15 of 2002 dated 09.04.2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that the legal heirs, successors or associates of the aforementioned attorneys have fraudulently executed sale deeds in respect of the subject property though the said GPA was cancelled. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.5 and 7 and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Prima facie, it appears from the record that there are disputes over the subject property claimed by the petitioner and the nature of the subject property and its classification.

5. The petitioner in this writ petition is inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title and possession of the subject property. In view of the serious disputes with regard to right, title and possession of the subject property, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the absence of examination of the documents relating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightful owner of the land in question; who is in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how and under what circumstances they claim to be in possession; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-à-vis the true owner, etc., are material questions that arose for consideration in this writ petition. In my view, these are pure questions of fact, which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, and not in a writ pet