ORDER : (C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.) : This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondents in not paying compensation awarded vide Award Proceedings No.B/1690/2008 dated 28.08.2010 by the respondent No.1 in respect of their land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.778 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, acquired for the purpose of formation of National Highway No.202 from KM 30 to 54 (Hyderabad-Yadagirigutta), Nalgonda District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of Land Acquisition Act and other consequential reliefs. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they along with one Pinnapureddy Mohan Reddy are the owners, pattedars and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.778 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 07.07.1997. It is their further case that their names were also mutated in the revenue records vide Proceedings No.J/1921/1997 dated 25.06.1997 and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were issued vide Patta No.1235 dated 09.12.1997. It is also their case that in the revenue records, the nature of the lands has been classified as “Patta lands” and the names of their predecessors in interest depicted as pattedars. While-so, the respondent No.3 has issued a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquiring land for formation of four laning National Highway No.202 from KM 30 to 54 (Hyderabad-Yadagirigutta) road. On the requisition proposals submitted by the Project Director of National Highways Authority of India, a survey has been conducted and consequential thereto, a notification has been issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 on 10.12.2009 and published in the newspapers requiring all the interested persons to submit their objections within 21 days from the date of publication. The case of the petitioners is that in response to said notification, they have submitted proposals claiming right over the property for payment for compensation. The respondents after conducting award enquiry, vide proceedings No.B/1690/2008 dated 28.08.2010 awarding compensation @ Rs.1200/- per square yard with all consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, the respondents issued notice to the petitioners to receive the compensation. The respondents after conducting award enquiry, vide proceedings No.B/1690/2008 dated 28.08.2010 awarding compensation @ Rs.1200/- per square yard with all consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, the respondents issued notice to the petitioners to receive the compensation. The petitioner No.1 received the cheque and on verification of the cheque found that his name was wrongly mentioned as Jitta Ravinder Reddy instead of Gitta Ravinder Reddy and therefore, he submitted a representation on 15.04.2011 requesting to issue another cheque with correct name. It is stated that Petitioner No.2 could not appear on the scheduled date to collect the cheque due to personal inconvenience. It is further stated that another claimant, Sri P. Mohan Reddy, received his cheque for Rs.22,72,053/- and encashed the same. However, the respondents issued a notice dated 11.07.2011, stating that they had received an application/representation claiming that the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.778, is Wakf land and directed the petitioners and others to appear on 25.07.2011 with relevant revenue records as proof of patta lands. In pursuance of the same, it is stated that the petitioners submitted sale deeds and also the mutation proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in Proceedings No.J/1921/1997 dated 25.06.1997 and requested the respondents to drop the proceedings and pay the compensation. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after submitting Registered Sale deeds, mutation proceedings and pattedar passbooks, the respondents are not paying the compensation and therefore, the said action on the part of respondents amounts to violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently, prayed this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 4. The respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the lands in Sy.No.778 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, were recorded as “KHAIRATI INAM” and it was continued upto 1979- 78 and thereafter, it was recorded as “PEERLA INAM”. 4. The respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the lands in Sy.No.778 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, were recorded as “KHAIRATI INAM” and it was continued upto 1979- 78 and thereafter, it was recorded as “PEERLA INAM”. It is further stated that on verification of the records, it was found that Occupancy Right Certificate in Form III under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 was issued vide Proceedings No.P/999/1998 dated Nil.04.1998 by the Sub-Collector, Bhongir in favour of Chief Executive Officer of Wakf Board and the same was also published in AP Gazette No.9A dated 01.03.1990 Page No.777 at Sl.No.16618, recording the nature of the property as Wakf Property. It is further stated that having come to know the said fact, the respondents have initiated an action to reexamine the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners for correction of entries in the name of the Wakf Board. A reading of the counter affidavit would reveal that respondents are disputing the title and possession of the petitioners over the subject land and the respondents prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the subject lands admeasuring Ac.3-00gts in Sy.No.778 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, under registered sale deeds dated 07.07.1997 and their names were also mutated in the revenue records under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “ROR Act, 1971”) and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were also issued. Whereas it is the case of the respondents that as per the revenue records in Khasra Pahani, the nature of subject lands were classified as “KHAIRATI INAM” and the said entries were continued upto 1978- 79. Further, Occupancy Right Certificate in Form III under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 was issued vide Proceedings No.P/999/1998 dated Nil.04.1998 by the Sub-Collector, Bhongir in favour of Chief Executive Officer of Wakf Board and the same was also published in AP Gazette No.9A dated 01.03.1990 Page No.777 at Sl.No.16618, recording the nature of the subject property as Wakf Property. It may be noted that under Section 6 of the ROR Act, 1971, every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Admittedly, as on the date of filing the writ petition, correction of entries in the revenue records was not carried out. Further, under Section 6-A to 6-D of the ROR Act, the revenue authorities are empowered to issue pattedar passbooks and title deeds. As per Section 6-A of the Act, every owner, pattedar, mortgagee, or tenant of any land, shall apply for issuance of passbook and title deed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, and on making such an application, the Mandal Revenue Officer, shall cause an enquiry prescribed in accordance with Rules and shall issue title and passbooks. The case of the petitioners is that following the procedure contemplated under the ROR Act, 1971, they have obtained title deeds. Whereas the case of the respondents is that Occupancy Right Certificate has been issued in favour of Wakf board vide proceedings No.P/999/98 dated nil.04.1998 by the Sub-Collector, Bhongir and the same was also published in Gazette No.9-A dated 01.03.1990. As on the date of purchasing the property by the petitioners, the nature of the property was shown as Wakf property and thereafter, under the provisions of ROR Act, 1971, the title deeds were issued to the petitioners. 7. It is pertinent to state that the parties to this writ petition are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession of the subject property. In view of the serious dispute with regard to right, title, and possession of the subject property, writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the absence of examination of the documents relating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightful owner of the land in question; whether the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstances they claim to be in possession; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-à-vis the true owner, etc., are material questions that arose for consideration in this writ petition. In my view, these are pure questions of fact, which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, and not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been consistently held by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rights. 8. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.” (emphasis supplied). 9. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well-settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute.” It is well settled law that this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possession of the parties in the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance. 10. Be that as it may, in view of the serious title dispute over the subject land and as the competent authority is not conferred to apportion the compensation amount among the inter se parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to refer the dispute under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to the competent civil court for adjudication and apportionment of the same. 11. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.