ORDER : 1. Since the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same and the issues are intertwined the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. W.P. No. 1136 of 2017: 2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of 4th respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner on 29.01.2006 to grant permission for construction of residential house in plot of land admeasuring 133.33 square yards and not considering the representation dated 26.09.2016, as being arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. W.P. No. 22483 of 2024: 3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner had sought to declare the action of respondent in interfering into the petitioner’s property without issuing any notice or giving lawful intimation and not following due procedure established by law, as being illegal and arbitrary. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for respondent No. 1, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Municipal Corporation and perused the record. 5. Petitioner contends that he having purchased the plot of land admeasuring 133.33 square yards in Sy. No. 384 under registered sale deed bearing document No. 172/2013, intending to construct a residential house therein had approached the respondent authorities for sanction of building permission and based on the instructions of the 4th respondent, had made an application seeking regularization of the aforesaid plot of land under Layout Regularization Scheme, 2015 by paying the requisite fee of Rs.10,000/- by obtaining a demand draft. 6. Petitioner further contends that upon the petitioner making application for grant of building permission along with application under Layout Regularization Scheme, the 4th respondent rejected the said application made by him on the ground that as per the General Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government, vide G.O.Ms. No. 151 dated 02.11.2015, the proposed site is falling in Agriculture to residential use zone and thus, the application of the petitioner has been verified and noticed that the site in question is falling in vicinity of certain areas wherein there are restrictions for granting approval under regularization scheme. 7. No. 151 dated 02.11.2015, the proposed site is falling in Agriculture to residential use zone and thus, the application of the petitioner has been verified and noticed that the site in question is falling in vicinity of certain areas wherein there are restrictions for granting approval under regularization scheme. 7. It is also contended by the petitioner that while the respondent authorities have rejected the application made by the petitioner seeking for regularization of his plot of land, the same said authority had granted the building permissions to his neighbours, vide proceedings dated 23.12.2015 and 18.01.2016 in respect of properties situated in the very same survey number and locality as that of the petitioner. 8. Petitioner further contends that the respondent Government itself is constructing a Government hospital in the same survey number and the locality and that the 4th respondent is a silent spectator to the aforesaid construction being made while the said authorities are giving a deaf ear to his request. 9. It is also contended by the petitioner that the 4th respondent authority is not vested with any power or authority to verify the compliances of other laws viz. Conversion of Agricultural Land to residential use zone under the Agricultural Land Conversion Act and thus, the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the ground indicated in the rejection order is clearly vitiated. 10. Petitioner contends that while the action of the respondent authority in rejecting the application made seeking for regularization of plot is pending consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 1136 of 2017, the respondent Municipal Corporation is interfering into the petitioner's property without issuing any notice or intimation and have scheduled a general body meeting of the Council on 15.07.2024 by circulating the agenda under the cover of letter dated 11.07.2024 wherein one of the agenda item for discussion is to undertake construction of public toilets in petitioner’s plot of land so as to defeat and deny the claim of the petitioner over the subject plot. 11. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4 Municipality is filed in both the Writ Petitions. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality would contend that the subject plot in respect of which the petitioner is seeking regularization under the Layout Regularization Scheme, 2015 belongs to the Municipality wherein there existed an Agricultural godown earlier. 13. 11. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4 Municipality is filed in both the Writ Petitions. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality would contend that the subject plot in respect of which the petitioner is seeking regularization under the Layout Regularization Scheme, 2015 belongs to the Municipality wherein there existed an Agricultural godown earlier. 13. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that originally the subject property to which the petitioner is laying a claim belonged to the Agriculture Department which had built an Agriculture godown therein 60 years back and the subject premises belonging to the Agricultural Department was assigned House No. 16-37; and that in the records of 1978 of the erstwhile Grampanchayat, the subject property is shown as Agriculture godown only. 14. The respondent Municipality by the counter-affidavit further contends that the aforesaid Agriculture godown was handed over to the Grampanchayat before the same is upgraded into Municipality and the Grampanchayat on being handed over the aforesaid godown has dismantled the same 15 years back and the said property was used for public utility such as daily market for small vegetable vendors. 15. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that the respondents thereafter considering the request made by the authorities of Telangana Southern Power Supply and Distribution Company Limited (TSPDCL) had given oral permission during the year 2019-2020 to install Fisocal Temporary Box for the collection of bills and ran the same for a period of three years. 16. The respondent Municipality by the counter-affidavit would further contend that upon the request made by the Municipality, the TSPDCL authorities have removed the temporary box/structure enabling the respondent authority to construct a Sulabh Complex and the authorities have completed construction upto basement level for putting up a Sulabh Complex during the year 2024 which construction activity was interrupted on account of lack of funds. 17. The respondents by the counter-affidavit would further contend that the authorities have also granted permission to run two open sheds for selling vegetables in the land belonging to Municipality adjacent to the subject property and on allotment of funds for construction of Sulabh Complex, the authorities would resume the construction work. 18. 17. The respondents by the counter-affidavit would further contend that the authorities have also granted permission to run two open sheds for selling vegetables in the land belonging to Municipality adjacent to the subject property and on allotment of funds for construction of Sulabh Complex, the authorities would resume the construction work. 18. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that nine years prior to the alleged purchase of property by the petitioner, the respondent Municipality had laid foundation stone for construction of Sulabh Complex, while the petitioner is claiming to have purchased the subject property, vide document No. 172 of 2013. It is also contended that the aforesaid purchase of plot by the petitioner under document No. 172 of 2013 is without having any valid link documents and the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid document has tried to occupy the structure consisting of basement erected by the respondent Corporation at the subject site. 19. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that for the past 25 years the subject land and the structure of basement constructed is under the possession of Grampanchayat/ Municipality wherein Agriculture godown existed earlier with Door No. 16-37. 20. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the authorities by causing verification of all the aforesaid facts have rightly rejected the application made by the petitioner for regularization of the aforesaid plot under Layout Regularization Scheme, 2015 as in the subject land originally there existed an old Agricultural godown belonging to the Agricultural Department which has been handed over to the Gram Panchayat/Municipality. The respondent by stating as above has also enclosed the extract of the house tax arrears register for the five years viz. 1991-92 to 1995-96 maintained by the erstwhile Grampanchayat showing that in respect of House No. 16-37 the name of the owner is reflected as ‘Agricultural godown’. 21. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that from the photographs annexed to the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 22483 of 2024 would clearly show that the claim of the petitioner of existence to open plot is factually incorrect as there exists a constructed basement which construction has been undertaken by the respondent Municipality and also on the adjoining open land permission having been granted to run vegetable shops. By stating as above, learned Standing Counsel seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 22. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. By stating as above, learned Standing Counsel seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 22. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 23. Though the petitioner claims title to the subject property on the basis of sale deed dated 02.01.2013, there is no mention as to how the petitioner’s vendor had got title to the subject property before selling the same to the petitioner. 24. Further, a perusal of the sale deed shows that the petitioner having purchased 133.33 square yards in Block No. 18 in Sy. No. 384 without there being any plot number except mentioning the subject property is bounded by two houses on east and north, while is bounded by roads on west and south. Further, the perusal of the additional documents filed into this Court by the petitioner, vide I.A. No. 2 of 2024 on 28.08.2024 enclosing therewith copy of the pahani of the year 1977-78 shows the land in Sy. No. 384 being sub-divided wherein the petitioner’s vendor’s husband name is shown as pattadar in respect of land in Sy. No. 384/A to an extent of 3.39 gts classified as ‘chelkapatta’ which means dry land, while the land to an extent of 20 guntas in the same survey number with sub-division No. 384/AA is shown as Government land. 25. No material is placed before this Court to show that the petitioner’s vendor or her husband having made a layout wherein the subject plot of land with the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed is located. Thus, the entire dispute in the present Writ Petition relates to one of identification and localization of the land of the petitioner’s vendor’s husband who has been granted patta in respect of land in Sy. No. 384/A to an extent of Ac. 3.39 gts. while the respondents are claiming the land in Sy. No. 384/AA admeasuring 0.20 guntas wherein the respondents claim of existence of an Agricultural godown with Door No. 16-37 duly reflected in the records maintained by the respondents Municipality. 26. It is trite law that in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, disputes relating to title, identification and localization of property cannot be gone into and for the said purpose, the parties are required to avail civil remedies whereby such disputes can be resolved by collection of evidence. 26. It is trite law that in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, disputes relating to title, identification and localization of property cannot be gone into and for the said purpose, the parties are required to avail civil remedies whereby such disputes can be resolved by collection of evidence. [See: Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and Others, MANU/SC/0511/2021 : 2021 INSC 345, The District Collector and Others vs. G. Dayakar and Others, 2003 (1) ALD 59 : 2003 (2) ALT 58 , Radhey Shyam and Others vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 , State of U.P. and Others vs. Ehsan and Others, MANU/SC/1137/2023, City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 168 ] 27. Though the petitioner had placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 SCC Online SC 95 and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771 the same having regard to the aforesaid discussion, would not advance the case of the petitioner. 28. On the contrary, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Writ Appeal No.697 of 2023 dated 24.08.2023 infrastructure (of which I am a member) had held that in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the disputes relating to title, identification and localization of property cannot be gone into. 29. Having regard to the law as enunciated by the Apex Court and the Division bench of this Court and since the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner involves disputed question of fact, cannot be gone into by issuing a writ of mandamus declaring the subject property as belonging to the petitioner. For the said purpose the petitioner is required to avail the civil remedies by approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 30. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions as filed involving disputed question of fact relating to identification and localization of the property cannot be adjudicated. For the said reason the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the present Writ Petition. 31. 30. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions as filed involving disputed question of fact relating to identification and localization of the property cannot be adjudicated. For the said reason the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the present Writ Petition. 31. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to workout the remedies open to him in civil law. 32. Accordingly, in terms of the above observation, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. It is made clear that any objections made herein are not to be treated as expression of opinion by this Court. 33. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.