ORDER : In this Writ Petition, petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them from their lawful possession and enjoyment of plot Nos. 96, 107, 108, 94, 97, 81, 82, 83 and 110 respectively covered under Survey No. 196/AA situated at Shankarpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without following due process of law, as illegal. 2. Petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of their respective plots measuring 200 Sq. yards each in Survey No. 196/AA of Shankarpally Village, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds by paying valuable sale consideration to their vendor on different dates during 2011 and 2012. On the northern side of their layout, there is a layout called ‘Ritwik Layout’ in Survey No.196/A, where the owners of those plots raised buildings and residing in their respective houses. It is the case of petitioners that total extent in Survey No.196 is Acs.9.28 guntas as per Khasra of 1954-55; out of the said extent, Acs.6.28 guntas was sold to the then local body called Mir Mazlis local fund under a registered document by the original owners Vishnupanthula Sankaraiah and Ramulu. Subsequently, the Land in Survey No.196 was sub-divided into 196/A and 196/AA, measuring Acs.6.28 and Acs.3.00 respectively. As already stated, the original owner already sold Acs.6.28 guntas to the local body and Acs.3.00 is remained there in the names of original owners which reflect in the revenue records. It is stated that, out of Acs.6.28 guntas in Survey No.196/A, the Gram panchayath gifted Acs.3.20 guntas to Agricultural Market Committee vide registered gift deed No.243/1976, dated 27.05.1976. The remaining Acs.3.08 guntas is with the local body. There is a dispute between the Agricultural Market Committee and the persons who are in occupation of the said land i.e. Sy.No.196/A with regard to the title over the property. Writ Petitions No. 25803, 26992 and 27017 of 2011 were filed in that connection wherein this Court granted order of ‘status quo' in all these matters. As such, the authorities could not take possession of the property in Survey No.196/A and more so, constructions have come up where owners are living there. Writ Petitions No. 25803, 26992 and 27017 of 2011 were filed in that connection wherein this Court granted order of ‘status quo' in all these matters. As such, the authorities could not take possession of the property in Survey No.196/A and more so, constructions have come up where owners are living there. Thereupon, as there is no other go, the Agricultural Market Committee approached the revenue authorities, who expressed their inability to take possession of the property in Survey No.196/A as a residential colony has come up and the Applications of the residents are under consideration for regularisation apart from the status quo orders granted by this Court. The Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 15.09.2015 recommended for regularisation of the occupation of land in Survey No.196/A as per G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 30.12.2014. More so, the gram panchayath approved the building permissions dated 23.11.2008 for construction in Survey No.196/A. The Special Deputy Collector issued notices to them for payment of NALA charges which were paid vide cheque No. 9042, dated 12.11.2012 and Electricity Department had also given service connection. Petitioners assert that they have valid title over the schedule land. However, the authorities had entertained the idea of changing topography of the schedule land to make it appear as if the land in Survey No. 196/AA is the one covered by Survey No. 196/A and the Secretary, Shankarpally Agricultural Market Committee got demolished the boundary wall between the layout. It is stated that petitioners have shown their title deeds to the authorities, but they bent upon to proceed with dispossession without following due process of law. The layout of petitioners’ land in Survey No. 196/AA approved by the Director of Country and Town Planning way back in 1989 would show that the land in question is in Survey No. 196/AA and not in Survey No. 196/A as per their alleged sketch. Whereas the impugned sketch prepared by the respondents shows that the land in Survey No. 196/A is situated on the southern side of petition schedule land contrary to the approved layout which itself sufficient to show that they changed the topography. 3. This Court, while entertaining the Writ Petition, granted order of status quo to be maintained in respect of the subject plots covered by Survey No. 196/AA. 4. 3. This Court, while entertaining the Writ Petition, granted order of status quo to be maintained in respect of the subject plots covered by Survey No. 196/AA. 4. In the counter-affidavit, the 3rd respondent stated mainly that petitioners seek to raise several disputed questions of facts in relation to their title which cannot be agitated in a Writ Petition. They cannot be permitted to urge complicated questions of fact requiring adducing of evidence and probative consideration of documents. It is stated that on 27.05.1975, Gift Settlement Deed was executed by Gram Panchayat to an extent of Acs. 03.20 guntas in favour of Agriculture Market Committee, Shankarpally in public interest and the same was accepted by the Secretary on behalf of the Agriculture Market Committee. Apart from the said land, Government has also acquired the land to an extent of Ac. 01-02 guntas in Survey No. 197 situated in 1980 for construction of Agriculture Market yard. Balance extent of Acs. 3-08 guntas remained with the Gram Panchayat. In view of the attempts to encroach upon the Gram Panchayat's land in Sy. No. 196/A by land grabber, the District Administration had decided to resume the said land from the Gram Panchayat, Shankarpally. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 06.10.2015 was issued to the Gram Panchayat to show-cause as to why the said land in the possession of the Gram Panchayat should not be resumed by the Government. As no reply was issued by the Gram Panchayat and further since no objections were received with regard to the same, the then Tahsildar issued proceedings No. A/578/2013 dated 14.10.2015 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to resume the land under a Panchanama and hand over the same to Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee under a Panchanama and report. Pursuant to the same, the MRI, Shankarpally resumed the Government land to an extent of Acs. 03.08 guntas in Survey No. 196/A on 05.11.2015 under the cover of Panchanama and handed over the same to the Agriculture Market Committee, Shankarpally on the same day. It is submitted that as on the date of handing over of possession of the said land to the Market Committee, there exists only a water-tank and after handing over the possession, the Market Committee has been using the said land. Now, the land including the land previously handed over to the Market Committee is in possession of the Market Committee, Shankarpally. Now, the land including the land previously handed over to the Market Committee is in possession of the Market Committee, Shankarpally. It is stated that petitioners along with others had hatched up a plan to grab the valuable land belonging to the Government which was handed over to the Market Committee which is being put to public use. They cannot derive any right or title over the said land as they have been derived from persons, who have no right or title over the said land. No body can transfer a better title than what he himself has. As the alleged predecessors in title of petitioners do not have any title over the said land, they cannot also claim any right. It is incorrect and baseless to state that respondents are trying to dispossess petitioners from the land which is in their rightful possession. Therefore, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the counter-affidavit, the 5th respondent stated that petitioners suppressed the true facts and filed the present Writ Petition. The sum and substance of the counter is that petitioners have no right over the subject land; they are claiming title through the persons, who have no right or title over the subject property. In fact, the Gram Panchayat/Government is owner of the said property and nobody can transfer a better title than what he has and what he does not have or no one can transfer better title than he himself had. Petitioners are trying to encroach upon the government land without any right. They mislead the Court and obtained interim order of status quo. It is false to state that respondents are trying to dispossess petitioners without following due procedure. Petitioners admitted that they had already obtained permission from Gram Panchayat and constructing houses. In fact, they are not the owners of the land and government is the owner of the land. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, Revenue and Sri C. Hari Preet, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Market Committee. 7. The main grievance of petitioners is that the respondent authorities without following due process and without putting them on notice are trying to dispossess them. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, Revenue and Sri C. Hari Preet, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Market Committee. 7. The main grievance of petitioners is that the respondent authorities without following due process and without putting them on notice are trying to dispossess them. On the other hand, the averments of the counter would go to show that respondent authorities’ contention is that they have not been interfering with the plots of petitioners in Survey No. 196/AA and in fact, petitioners along with others hatched up a plan to grab the valuable land belonging to Government in Survey No. 196/A which was handed over to Market Committee. It is their further case that since the predecessors-in-title of petitioners do not have right, title over the subject plots, they cannot pass on to petitioners in respect of the said land. 8. In these circumstances, at the request of learned counsel for petitioners, to know the true facts, this Court appointed Advocate-Commissioners, in whose presence, Respondents 3 to 5 were directed to conduct survey of land in Survey No. 196/A and 196/AA of Shankarpally Village and to record its topography. 9. The Advocate-Commissioners filed their report on 29.02.2024 wherein they have observed that the documents produced before them would clinchingly establish that the land sought to be taken possession of by the authorities is situated in Survey No. 196/AA but not in Survey No. 196/A. Even assuming for a moment that if they really want to take possession of land in Survey No. 196/A, no documentary evidence is produced with regard to the show cause notice, if served on any one of the house owners in Survey No. 196/A. According to the Advocate-Commissioners, the authorities concerned appear to have acted in a stage-managed manner to make believe that the land in Survey No. 196/A is vacant contrary to their own proceedings showing Survey No. 196/AA as Survey No. 196/A. They have annexed the location sketch of market yard in Survey No. 196/A. 10. The pleadings narrated hereinabove and the report submitted by the learned Advocate-Commissioners disclose that this Writ Petition involve disputes in respect of right, title and possession of the parties. The pleadings narrated hereinabove and the report submitted by the learned Advocate-Commissioners disclose that this Writ Petition involve disputes in respect of right, title and possession of the parties. Here, it is to be remembered that the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, has, time and again, reiterated that title disputes cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the writ proceedings are summary in nature. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the matter. Suffice to hold that petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent civil Court to agitate their rights. 11. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent civil Court to agitate their right, title and possession over the subject plots. Till such time petitioners file civil suit, the order of status quo dated 06.11.2015 shall be in force. No costs. 12. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.