JUDGMENT Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: 'This Hon?ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering/obstructing in using the existing road from Pudicherla Village Map in Sy. No.405 to reach petitioner patta land in Sy.No.405 an extent of Ac.4.39 cents situated in Pudicherla Village fields Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District in spite of recommendation of 6th respondent by Lr.Rc.A/ /2018 dated 05.12.2018 which is illegal arbitrary unjust violative of principles of Natural Justice Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to use road which is earmarked for road in Pudicherla Village Map existing in Sy.No.405 of Pudicherla to reach subject land or otherwise petitioner and his family will suffer serious finance loss and great hardship and pass appropriate orders'. 3. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased some land in Sy.No.405, from his vendors vide registered sale deed dated 09.01.2019. The petitioner?s vendor is said to have succeeded the land from his ancestors and some land was also purchased by him. His further submission is that inspite of the recommendations of the 6th respondent-Tahsildar, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District vide letter Rc.A/2018 dated 05.12.2018 to the Managing Director of APADCL, to allow the petitioner to use rastha in Sy.No.405, the respondents 2 and 3 - The Andhra Pradesh Airports Development Corporation Limited (in short, 'APADCL') and its authorities are interfering/obstructing usage of the existing road/rastha from Pudicherla Village Map in Sy.No.405 situated in Pudicherla village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. However, a perusal of the alleged recommendation of the 6th respondent-Tahsildar shows that it is dated 05.12.2018, i.e. prior to the sale deed in petitioner?s favour on 09.01.2019 and if such recommendation of respondent No.6 is not being followed by respondents 2 and 3 as alleged, in the absence of any statutory force of such recommendation, which could not be established, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued based on such letter dated 05.12.2018. 5. 5. Further, it appears from the letter dated 05.12.2018 that part of Sy.No.405, to an extent of Ac.7.79 cents was acquired for establishment of Green Filed Airport by the BIACL authorities for formation of approach road to Airport and the remaining land in Sy.No.405 is said to be agricultural land. The petitioner also claimed to have purchased part of Sy.No.405 to some extent and claim to use the alleged existing rastha? to approach his agricultural land in Sy.No.405. There appears to be dispute between the Airport authorities and the petitioner with respect to alleged "rastha? in Sy.No.405. 6. The writ petition involves determination of such questions of fact, which in the view of this Court cannot be effectively adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition, is not the appropriate remedy for such matters and for the relief claimed. 7. Leaving it open to the petitioner, to seek such other remedy as may be open to him under law, if so advised, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.