APHC010051422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2617/2025 Between: Cheruku Dharma Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following order: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO.2617 of 2025 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the actions of Respondents No.2 and 3 in interfering with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.67 cents out of the total extent of Ac.3.67 cents in Survey No.59/1, Yendada Village, Chinnagadhilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said Ac.0.67cents of land without following the due process of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.0.67 cents out of the total extent of land admeasuring Ac.3.67 cents in Survey No.59/1, Yendada Village, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and the said property was inherited by his father, Cheruku Perraju, through a will dated 09.03.1955 executed by his grandfather and confirmed by a registered sale deed bearing No.51 of 1934, dated 08.01.1934 in a court auction in O.S.Nos.64 of 1933 and 65 of 1933. The petitioner is the only son and the notarized general power of attorney (GPA) holder for all family members of the late Cheruku Dharma Raju, dated 23.03.2022 with respect to the entire family property including Ac.38.20 cents of agricultural land. 3 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.01.2025 the Joint Director/2nd respondent and Assistant Director/3rd respondent, along with their subordinate officials, attempted to trespass and encroach upon his property threatening to forcibly dispossess the petitioner, without having any legal authority. Hence, the writ petition is filed on the ground that under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law and the respondents have failed to follow the due process of law and the respondents are threatening forceful eviction of the petitioner, which are contrary to established legal principles and statutory requirements. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished the proceedings vide file No.A(1)/218/2016, dated 03.02.2025 addressed by the District Agriculture Officer, Visakhapatnam to the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture Department, A.P.High Court, Amaravathi. As seen from the said proceedings, it is stated that the land, in an extent of Ac.0.64 cents in Sy.No.59/1 of Yendada Village of Chinagadili Mandal, is belongs to the Government of Andhra Pradesh which was rightfully allotted to the Department of Agriculture for construction of the Regional Fertilizer Control Lab. 5. In the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Rourkela v. Smt.Kalyani Banerjee and Ors. reported in 1973 (1) SCC 273 affirming the ratio in the case of Mohammed Hanif vs The State of 4 Assam reported in AIR-Online 1969 SC 167 and further relied the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal v. Union of India reported in AIR 1957 SC 529 held that where a serious dispute on questions of fact between the parties were raised and in particular the question arose whether one of the parties acquired any title to the property in dispute, proceeding by way of a writ to decide such questions is not appropriate. As otherwise the order passed by the writ Court would amount to a decree declaring a party's title. It was further pointed out that the proper remedy in such a case is by way of a title suit in a civil Court and the alternative remedy of obtaining relief by a writ of mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus could only be had if the facts were not in dispute and the title of the property in dispute was clear. (See paragraph 16, page-414 of the report.) 6. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh reported in 1993 (1) SCC(Suppl)306, the Apex Court held that a writ petition is misconceived in so far as it asked for, in effect, a declaration of the writ petitioner's title to a property. It was held that disputed questions of title cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in a writ petition. 7. Again in the case of Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria reported in 1992 (4) SCC 61 the Apex Court pointed out: “When a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. 5 The supreme Court further observed that : “The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.” 8. Since both the petitioner and the respondents are claiming their title over the subject land, it is purely a civil dispute between the parties and it has to be decided basing on the evidence. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate upon the issue to declare the right title over the subject property. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land, for a period of four weeks from the date of the order in order to avail the remedy by the petitioner before the appropriate authorities. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 10.02.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 2617 of 2025 Date : 10.02.2025 SPP