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 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 any grievance against the conversion proceedings, he has to prefer appeal under Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. In view of availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal debars the petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.12 and 13, on counter would submit that, the petitioner having failed in all his attempts in civil jurisdictional proceedings before the competent civil Courts, as a last resort, filed this writ petition. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.12 and 13, on counter would submit that, the petitioner having failed in all his attempts in civil jurisdictional proceedings before the competent civil Courts, as a last resort, filed this writ petition. The conversion orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer are appealable under Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. However, the petitioner instead of preferring appeal before the District Collector has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court and availability of alternative efficacious remedy renders this writ petition not maintainable. Further, complex questions of fact involved in this matter, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate violation of fundamental rights to maintain the writ petition. The writ petition is meritless besides being not maintainable. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the proceedings issued by the respondent no.8 in favour of respondent nos.12 and 13 ordering for conversion of lands from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 12 and 13, Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 provides for an appeal against the conversion orders to the District Collector. It is fairly settled that availability of alternative efficacious remedy debars the writ jurisdiction. No doubt, there are some exceptions to this general rule. However, the facts of this case do not fall under any one of those exceptions. 7. Further, the material available on record would disclose that civil proceedings in relation to the subject properties are pending for adjudication. Moreover, complex questions of fact are involved. It is a well established principle of law that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of facts. In view of the same, this Court cannot take up the task of resolving the complex factual issues in a writ petition filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a well established principle of law that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of facts. In view of the same, this Court cannot take up the task of resolving the complex factual issues in a writ petition filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach a competent civil Court to get his rights, if any, over the subject property declared in the pending civil proceedings or by institution of proceedings afresh if law permits. 8. In the above view of the matter, since an alternative efficacious remedy of preferring appeal is provided under the relevant Act for assailing the conversion proceedings and as complicated and complex questions of fact involved in this matter, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer appeal assailing the conversion proceedings as provided under the Act, 2006 or to get his grievance redressed in pending civil proceedings or by initiation of fresh proceedings, if law permits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed and interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.