ORDER : 1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “......to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of respondent No. 4 in not collecting the yearly rents from the petitioner in respect of the land adm Ac. 12.10 cents in R.S. No. 292/5 (old Survey No. 35) of Vempadu Agraharam Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Eluru District and threatening to evict the petitioner from the said land as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to collect the yearly rents from the petitioner in respect of the above said land and not to evict the petitioner from the above said land in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 12.10 cents in R.S. No. 292/5 of Vempadu Agraharam. Petitioner is claiming the possession by virtue of possessory agreement of sale dated 10.12.2014, executed by one Maganti Satyanarayana. The total extent of land in S. No. 292/5 (old S. No. 35) is Ac. 2539-00 cents. Numbers of farmers are in possession of the land. Disputes arose in between some farmers and 4th respondent Temple. Matter went upto Apex Court. A compromise order was passed. About five years back, officials of Endowment Department and Revenue Department conducted joint survey and recorded the names of persons in possession. Land is prohibited from registration. However, the executive Officer of the 4th respondent Temple is recognizing sales under unregistered agreements and collecting rents from them as per the judgement of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2541/1972. 3. One Late Chalasani Kali Mardhana Rao, Chalasani Ramadevi and others purchased lands from one Potluri Ramaswamy under unregistered possessory agreements of sale. The Executive Officer of the respondent No. 4-Temple is collecting land rents from the said persons, recognising their possession. Petitioner has been requesting respondent No. 4 to collect the land rent from him and made representation on 15.04.2023. Since the said representation was not considered, the above writ petition is filed. 4. The Executive Officer of the respondent No. 4-Temple is collecting land rents from the said persons, recognising their possession. Petitioner has been requesting respondent No. 4 to collect the land rent from him and made representation on 15.04.2023. Since the said representation was not considered, the above writ petition is filed. 4. Respondent No. 4 filed the counter affidavit, wherein, it was contended that respondent No. 4-Temple is classified under Section 6(a) of Act 30 of 1987 and is under the administrative control of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajamahendravaram. Temple is being managed by the Executive Officer. Respondent No. 4-Temple is having an extent of Ac. 3409.00 cents. Respondent No. 4-Temple conducted auction for lease hold rights for an extent of Ac. 52.77 cents. Regarding the remaining extent of Ac. 3356.23 cents, it was surveyed in the year 2003. As per the survey report, an extent of Ac. 2789.62 cents was in illegal possession of 1,038 enjoyers. The remaining extent of Ac. 566.61 cents consists of roads, paths, donkas, quarries, Ramileru and N.S. Canal etc. 5. The Assistant Settlement Officer declared Vempadu Agraharam Village in Nuzivid Mandal as Inam Village and the temple as Inamdar. Smt. Gadde Sasirekhamma, Sri Cherukuri Venkata Subba Rao and Sri Potluri Lakshmana Swamy obtained permanent pattas and leases of an extent of Ac. 1002.50 cents from the then Hereditary Trustee and have filed appeal No. 237 of 1950 before the Appellate Tribunal, Vijayanagaram and the same was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, Nuzvid and it was renumbered as A.S. No. 289 of 1953. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and dismissed the appeal on 07.08.1953. One Potluri Lakshmana Swamy filed L.P.A. No. 263 of 1968 and the same was allowed on 19.08.1971, by holding that Vempadu is an Estate Village. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.A. No. 2541 of 1972. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 18.04.1990, directed the ryots who were cultivating the lands belonged to the Temple to pay one quintal of ground nut or its equivalent rice as fixed by the Agricultural Price Commission of Government of India per acre per year before 31st December of every calendar year. However, most of the ryots failed to pay the maktha. Sale transaction took place behind the back of the temple. However, most of the ryots failed to pay the maktha. Sale transaction took place behind the back of the temple. Respondent No. 4 filed Section 83 petition against one Potluri Ramaswamy and others vide O.A. Nos. 304, 305, 306, 307 of 2021. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it was contended that, quarry land which is part and parcel of Ac. 100.00 cents is vacant and is under possession of respondent No. 4-Devasthana. The petitioner was never in the possession of the property at any point of time. 7. Heard Sri Md. Ghalib Shahid, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. P.Radhika, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 8. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued directing the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent to collect rent from the petitioner? (ii) Whether this court can rely upon or look into an unregistered and unstamped possessory agreement of sale? 9. As seen from the record, petitioner claimed the possession over an extent of Ac. 12.10 cents by virtue of possessory agreement of sale said to have been executed by one Maganti Satyanarayana, son of Sri Maganti Ramadasu. Xerox copy of the agreement dated 10-12-2014, filed along with the writ affidavit, would disclose that the agreement was executed on Rs.100/- non judicial stamp. As per Explanation I, Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 an agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a sale. The document executed on Rs.100/- non judicial stamp cannot be looked into for any purpose even for collateral purpose. 10. Even according to the petitioner, lands belonged to 4th respondent. Petitioner claims possession by virtue of possessory agreement said to have been executed by one M. Satyanarayana. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said M. Satyanarayana is the owner of the lands. The vendor of petitioner claimed title by virtue of agreement dated 11-11-2004 and the sale consideration under the agreement is Rs.60,00,000/-. 11. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is to direct the respondent No. 4 to accept the rent from him. The vendor of petitioner claimed title by virtue of agreement dated 11-11-2004 and the sale consideration under the agreement is Rs.60,00,000/-. 11. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is to direct the respondent No. 4 to accept the rent from him. In the opinion of this Court, such relief cannot be granted by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the petitioner is in possession of land or not is a disputed question of fact. Writ petition cannot be converted into a suit to resolve factual controversies which require evidence to be let in. The possessory agreement of sale relied upon by the petitioner is unregistered and under stamped document. 12. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it was contended that petitioner is not in possession of the property. Disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. Petitioner, having pleaded discrimination, nothing is placed before the Court to substantiate the said contention. 13. Writ of Mandamus is discretionary in nature and power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only in certain circumstances. It cannot be issued merely because a person is prayed for. Existence of legal right and alleged violation of the same is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner must plead and prove the legal right, be it statutory or constitutional right and its infringement. 14. As discussed supra, petitioner neither pleaded legal right nor infringement of such right. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.