ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the ownership, title and possession of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 covered in Sy.No.129/98 (Old Sy.No.403), situated at Banjara Hills, Road No.2, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt R.Swarnalatha, learned counsel-on-record for petitioner, and Ms. T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that originally, a total extent of Acs.7.00 guntas of land in old Sy.No.403 belonged to one Pochaiah, who held patta in 1954; that subsequently the said land was got regularized in the year 1957; that thereafter, Pochaiah alienated portions of the said land to various purchasers, including an extent of Acs.2.00 gts (the subject land) in favour of one K.V.Surendra Kumar Sarma under a registered Sale Deed No.2624/1968 dated 21.08.1968; that in the year 1973, the said K.V.Surendra Kumar Sarma executed a Will bequeathing the subject property to his siblings-K.V.Annapurna and K.V.Ramakrishna Sarma; and that upon his death on 06.06.1974, the legatees became absolute owners and continued to be in possession of the subject property by paying the land revenue from 1975 to 1989. 3.1. It was further averred that by virtue of the Award dated 15.02.2014 passed in Lok Adalat in CPLC.No.183 of 2023 and the Will Deed executed in his favour by K.V.Ramakrishna Sarma, the petitioner claims to have become the absolute owner thereof and also obtained Municipal Door No.8-2-269/S/129/98/P, Circle No.18, Banjara Hills, and has been paying property tax in his name. 3.2. While the things stood thus, the respondents-authorities, without issuing any notice and without any authority of law, attempted to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and sought to forcibly evict him from the subject property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. 3.2. While the things stood thus, the respondents-authorities, without issuing any notice and without any authority of law, attempted to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and sought to forcibly evict him from the subject property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner reiterated the contents of the writ affidavit and further submitted that the chain of title traces back to the year 1954, i.e., when originally, one Pochaiah, held patta and remained in uninterrupted possession; that subsequently, in the year 1968, K.V.Surendra Kumar Sarma purchased the land under a registered sale deed and from then onwards, the said property remained with the same family for over five decades, without objection from any public or private parties; that the subject property has always been treated as a private patta land; and that the revenue authorities themselves have recognized the same on multiple occasions. 4.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that Sudarshan Committee, appointed by the Government to probe into the lands covered in Banjara Hills, has conducted an elaborate survey and submitted its report, wherein it is stated that Sy.Nos.129/1 to 11 and 129/100 to 111 falls under Government lands and Sy.Nos.129/12 to 99 are private patta lands and thus, the report of Sudarshan Committee substantiates the case of the petitioner that the subject land is private patta land of Pochaiah. 4.2. Learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that despite the long and uninterrupted possession of the petitioner and his predecessors-in- title, the MRO and RDO have attempted to interfere with possession of the subject property by the petitioner and the said officials removed the board erected on the land and entered into the property claiming that the land belongs to the State. 4.3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the judgment of this Court in Sree Panchamurthy Co-operative Building Society squarely applies to the present case; that in the said case, the learned single judge of this Court held that the declaration by the Government or its authorities that the subject lands therein are Government lands is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is held that the original owners are proper assignees by the Sarfekhas authorities and consequently the subsequent vendees shall be treated as lawful owners with valid title and possession. 4.4. Accordingly, it is held that the original owners are proper assignees by the Sarfekhas authorities and consequently the subsequent vendees shall be treated as lawful owners with valid title and possession. 4.4. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the respondents, without issuing any notice, without initiating any proceedings, and without jurisdiction, forcibly entered into the subject property and directed the petitioner to vacate the same and that such unilateral and high-handed action on the part of the respondents-authorities amounts to illegal dispossession, arbitrary exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and hence, prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 5. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:- I. Sree Pancha Murthy Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Government of A.P. 2000 (3) ALD 520 II. State of A.P. Vs. Merit Enterprises and Ors. 1998 (8) SCC 749 III. Government of A.P. Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao, 1982 (2) SCC 134 IV. Jyothi Educational Society, Vijayawada Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors. 2002 (4) ALT 417 (DB) V. S. Vasantha and Anr. Vs. District Collector, Hyd and Ors. 2007 (2) ALT 714 (SB) VI. D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. 1993 (3) SCC 259 6. Among all the aforesaid judgments, learned senior counsel has placed heavy reliance on the judgment rendered in Sree Pancha Murthy Co-operative Housing Society’s case (cited supra). By placing reliance on the said judgment, learned senior counsel submitted that in the said case, the subject matter was various sub-divisions of Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, which was filed by the assignees therein and the High Court passed orders in favour of the said assignees and consequently, held that the subsequent vendees shall be treated as lawful owners with valid title and possession. He further submitted that in the present Writ Petition also, as the subject property lies in Sy.No.129, the judgment rendered in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable and prayed the Court to pass orders in terms of the said judgment. 7. He further submitted that in the present Writ Petition also, as the subject property lies in Sy.No.129, the judgment rendered in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable and prayed the Court to pass orders in terms of the said judgment. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the subject property claimed by the petitioner forms part of T.S.No.1/1/1A/1 (Part), Block–B, Ward No.10 , correlating to Sy.No.403/Part of Shaikpet Village, situated at Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, and is recorded as ‘Government land’ and that the said land is vacant on ground and is under the custody and control of the Government, with a signboard displayed therein. 7.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that Shaikpet Village was formerly a Sarfekhas Village; that the petitioner claims that Pochaiah, who is his predecessor-in-title, was granted patta by Sarfekhas authorities in respect of Sy.No.129/98 in the year 1930, however, after merger of Sarfekhas administration with the Diwani in the year 1949, the administration of Shaikpet Village was transferred and vested with the Government and the petitioner has failed to produce any valid or admissible documents showing continuity of title after such merger. She further submitted that any alienations/pattas/assignments said to have been issued by Sarfekhas authorities after 1949 are invalid and unenforceable in law. 7.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for further submitted that Pochaiah was allegedly granted patta in the year 1930 and if the said fact is read with the age of Pochaiah mentioned as 45 years in the registered sale deed bearing Document No.2624/1968, it shows that he would have been only 7 years old at the time of grant of patta, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness and validity of the alleged assignment patta and this discrepancy clearly indicates that the patta is fabricated or manipulated. 7.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that after the revision survey and issuance of supplementary Sethwars, the Sarfekhas authorities had no authority to assign or alienate lands without approval of the Crown (HEH Nizam), as per the judgment dated 02.02.1977 passed in CCCA.Nos.43 and 45/1974 and hence, any assignments purportedly made by Sarfekhas are invalid, null and void. 7.4. 7.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that after the revision survey and issuance of supplementary Sethwars, the Sarfekhas authorities had no authority to assign or alienate lands without approval of the Crown (HEH Nizam), as per the judgment dated 02.02.1977 passed in CCCA.Nos.43 and 45/1974 and hence, any assignments purportedly made by Sarfekhas are invalid, null and void. 7.4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that Sy.No.129/98, in which the petitioner claims his land to be situated, is non-existent in official revenue records, and thus, the petitioner’s claim is wholly untenable; that the subject land forms part of the lands involved in W.P.No.25660/2008, filed by the Government challenging the orders of the Land Grabbing Tribunal in LGC No.100/1998 and LGC No.12/2006, in which a status quo order dated 01.05.2008 is in force, and the writ petition is still pending for adjudication. She further submitted that the petitioner has neither title nor possession over the land, and the claim is an attempt to encroach upon Government property; the petitioner is claiming title over the property which is coupled with the intricate questions of fact and therefore, the petitioner has to only file a civil suit to vindicate his rights over the subject land and finally, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition as the same is devoid of any merits. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue advanced arguments touching upon the title over the subject property. On one hand, the petitioner claims to have acquired title and ownership over the subject property, by tracing title from the original pattadar-Pochaiah, who was allegedly assigned patta by Sarfekhas in the year 1930. On the other hand, the Government claims that after merger of Sarfekhas with Diwani in the year 1949 and also as per the judgment in CCCA.Nos.43 and 45 of 1974, the Sarfekhas have no authority or jurisdiction to assign or alienate the lands beyond the approval of the Crown and in such a situation, the petitioner failed to produce any valid title document in respect of the subject property after such merger of Sarfekhas into the Government. 9. The case of the petitioner is that subject property is situated in Sy.No.129/98 (Old Sy.No.403) of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. 9. The case of the petitioner is that subject property is situated in Sy.No.129/98 (Old Sy.No.403) of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. As regards the said averment, in the counter filed by the Government, it was specifically contended that Sy.No.129 measures a total extent of Acs.3,288.02 guntas, which is locally known as ‘kancha tatti khana’ and the same is shown as ‘Government land’ in the revenue records. It was also averred that the subject property is correlated to TS.No.1/1/1A/1 part, Block-B, Ward No.10 corresponding to Sy.No.403/P, which is classified as ‘Government land’. 10. In the vagueness of the aforesaid facts of the case, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, i.e., to direct the respondents not to interfere with his ownership, title and possession over the subject property, is sought to be adjudicated by this Court by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Furthermore, it is not out of place to note that earlier, in respect of land in various sub-divisions in Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, a batch of Writ Petitions, vide Writ Petition Nos.11200 of 1998 and three other Writ Petitions were filed by a private party, wherein the petitioner claimed to have derived title from one Mir Hassan Ali Khan, who is said to be assignee and purchaser of the land from Sarfekhas, and the said Writ Petitions were disposed of by a learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by common judgment dated 27.03.2000, holding as hereunder:- “The declaration by the Government or its authorities that the subject lands are Government lands is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is held that the original owners are proper assignees by the Sarfekhas authorities and consequently, the subsequent vendees shall be treated as lawful owners with valid title and possession.” 12. Learned senior counsel has principally contended that both in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions and in the present Writ Petition, the source of title originally flown from Sarfekhas, who assigned the land in Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village to various assignees, and as such, the observations and findings given by the learned single Judge in the said common judgment are squarely applicable to be present case. 13. 13. On a close scrutiny of the entire history of the said batch of Writ Petitions and on a rigorous task of probing into further proceedings, if any, in respect of the common judgment passed in Sree Pancha Murthy Co-Operative House Building Society Limited ’s case (cited supra), it came to light that against the aforesaid common judgment, the Government preferred a batch of Writ Appeals, vide Writ Appeal Nos.499 to 502 of 2000 and a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, after considering the pleadings of both the parties therein and in the light of the various judgments rendered to the effect that when there are disputed questions of title over a property, the same shall not be adjudicated and entertained in a writ proceeding particularly where the parties have effective alternative remedies before other forums or Courts, allowed the said Writ Appeals, vide judgment dated 28.08.2002, and set aside the common judgment passed in Sree Pancha Murthy Co-Operative House Building Society Limited’ s case (cited supra), however, reserved liberty to the writ petitioner therein to avail private law remedies by way of declaration, injunction and damages before the competent jurisdictional civil Court. 14. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28.08.2002 passed in WA.Nos.499 to 502 of 2000, the writ petitioner therein preferred SLP.Nos.1164 to 1967 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same were dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2003. The judgment passed in the aforesaid batch of Writ Appeals and the SLPs have not been placed before this Court by either of the parties to the Writ Petition. Thus, the judgment dated 27.3.2000 in Writ Petition No.11200 of 1998 and batch holds good and binding on the parties. 15. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench observed that the learned Single Judge was not justified in deciding the questions of title and possessory rights of the parties, particularly, in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when effective alternative remedies before other forums or Courts are available. 16. Now, coming to the case on hand, in essence, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is nothing, but indirectly to grant consequential relief of declaring the ownership, title and possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. 17. 16. Now, coming to the case on hand, in essence, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is nothing, but indirectly to grant consequential relief of declaring the ownership, title and possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. 17. As regards the issue of entertaining and adjudicating a Writ Petition, when there are disputed questions of title, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there are a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one amongst it is rendered in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh & Ors . AIR 1992 SC 1018 . In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the rival pleadings of both the parties therein, recorded its observations and held as follows:- “Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was misconceived insofar as it asked for, in effect, a declaration of writ petitioner’s title to the said plot. It is evident from the facts stated hereinabove that the title of the writ petitioner is very much in dispute. Disputed question relating to title cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition.” 18. It is settled proposition of law that when serious dispute on questions of fact persists between the parties and a particular question arises as to whether one of the parties has acquired any title to the property in dispute, the proceedings by way of Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy in a case where the decision of the Court would amount to a decree declaring a party’s title and ordering restoration of possession. 19. Adverting the aforesaid settled proposition of law to the present case, from the pleadings averred by both the parties, it is very much evident that there exists serious disputed questions of fact as regards the subject Sy.No.129 in Shaikpet Village, as the Government has denied the very existence of the said Survey number, nevertheless, the petitioner claimed that one Pochaiah was assigned patta in respect of the said survey number. Further, the Government has relied upon the revenue records, wherein the subject Survey number is correlated to new Sy.No.403/P and is recorded as ‘Government land’ and seriously denied the title of the original assignee-Pochaiah, from whom the petitioner claims to have derived title to him. Further, the Government has relied upon the revenue records, wherein the subject Survey number is correlated to new Sy.No.403/P and is recorded as ‘Government land’ and seriously denied the title of the original assignee-Pochaiah, from whom the petitioner claims to have derived title to him. Even there is serious dispute as to which of the parties i.e., the petitioner or the Government is in possession of the subject property. 20. As regards the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the report of Sudarshan Committee fortifies that the subject land is private patta land and as such, the petitioner has established the title of the original pattadar-Pochaiah, it is to be seen that pursuant to the report of Sudarshan Committee, a gazette notification was published in the year 1981, requesting the land owners therein, which also includes the name of Pochaiah at Column No.30, to regularize their ownership in respect of the lands covered in Sy.No.129. In the said gazette notification, the pattadars named therein or their legal representatives or successors-in-interest were directed to be present in person or through counsel before the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Hyderabad District on 10-09-1981 and give evidence and produce the documents, viz., Assignment orders, site plan, any other documents of title, receipts for payment of land revenue assessment in respect of the Survey numbers noted against their respective names. However, there is no averment in the writ affidavit as to the further action taken by the successors-in-interest of Pochaiah pursuant to the said gazette notification to establish their claim over the subject land, therefore, the issue of title/ownership over the subject land has remained uncrystallized. 21. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as a civil Court and decide the disputed questions of title, ownership and possession of the subject property. The petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of filing a suit seeking appropriate reliefs before a competent civil Court, therefore, this Court, without delving into the merits of claim to the subject property by either of the parties, deems it appropriate and justifiable to dismiss the Writ Petition at the threshold. 22. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail private law remedies seeking appropriate relief before the competent jurisdictional civil Court, if he is so advised. 23. 22. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail private law remedies seeking appropriate relief before the competent jurisdictional civil Court, if he is so advised. 23. As a sequel, impugned order, dated 29.12.2023, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs.