ORDER : (TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.) The Writ Petition No.11039 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s: …. Pleased to issue a writ order or more particularly in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 4 and 5 threatening to demolish the shops bearing D.Nos.7-122 D/2, with assessment Number 1334, where the petitioners constructed 8 shops as per sanctioned plan issued by the 4 th respondent vide B.A. No.13/14-15, Dated 14.11.2014, belongs to the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, situated in Sy.No.178A/1B1 Kandulapuram Village, Cumbam Mandal, Prakasam District, without issuing any notice or opportunity, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to demolish the 8 shops bearing D.Nos.7-122 D/2, with assessment Number 1334, Kandulapuram Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District and pass such other orders…….. 2. The Writ Petition No.4371 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s: …. Pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not protecting burial ground site of Ac. 22.25 cents in Sy.No.178/A1 and Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.178/A2 of Kandulapuram Revenue Village in Cumbum Mandal of Prakasam District from being encroached upon by 6 th respondent and other third parties, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act , 1905 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to protect said burial ground without allowing any encroachments thereon and by removing already encroached portion therefrom and pass such other order or orders…… 3. The W.P. No.11039 of 2021 is filed challenging the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the shops bearing D.Nos.7-122 D/2, with assessment number 1334, where the petitioners constructed 8 shops as per sanction plan issued by the 4 th respondent, vide B.A. No.13/14-15, dated 14.11.2014, belongs to the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, situated in Sy.No.178A/1B1 Kandulapuram village, Cumbam Mandal, Prakasam District, without issuing any notice or following due procedure of law. 4. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner in W.P. No.11039 of 2024 that the 5 th respondent-Tasildar orally allotted the subject land to the petitioners-temple for the purpose of performing Pooja on the auspicious days/festival days. Later the 5 th respondent issued D-Form patta to the petitioners temple on 27.07.2013 in Survey No.178A/1B1, to an extent of Ac.0-20 ½ cents in Kandulapuram village, Cumbum Mandal, and the said site named as Paruveta site and as per the revenue records, and there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of the subject land to the petitioners temple. While, the matter stood thus, the 6 th respondent i.e. Ketham Srinivasulu, who is writ petitioner in W.P. No.4371 of 2021, made a complaint to the 4 th and 5 th respondents against the petitioners temple saying that the temple land is burial ground site and not belongs to the temple and the petitioners herein are allegedly constructed 8 shops illegally and the said construction is unauthorized. On the said false report, employees of the 4 th and 5 th respondents, came to the petitioners temple and threatened to demolish the shops, on the ground that total shops were constructed illegally, and the present Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the official respondents in threatening that they demolish the shops situated in Sy.No.178A/1B1, which is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The W.P. No.4371 of 2021 is filed assailing the action of the respondents in not protecting burial ground site of Ac.22.25 cents in Sy.N.178/A1 and Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.178/A2 of Kandulapuram Revenue Village in Cumbum Mandal of Prakasam District. 6. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.4371 of 2021 that the 6 th respondent i.e. Sri Pattabhi Rama Swamy and Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam represented by its President, Kandulapuram Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District, claiming that the authorities have assigned an extent of land Ac.0.02½ cents in Survey No.178A/1B1 of Kandulapuram Revenue Village, Kumbum Mandal and they themselves formed into a committee who are land grabbers and encroachers and claimed to have obtained assignment of land in an extent of Ac.0- 02 ½ cents covered by Survey No.178A/1B1 of said village, situated to the south of said land of burial ground. However, in fact, as per RSR copy of the DK register, furnished by the then Kandulapuram Gram Panchayat by way of endorsement in RTI/A/14/2013, dated 13.06.2013 in reply to an application made under RTI Act, D-Form Patta was granted for a land of Ac.0.02 ½ cents covered by Survey No.178A/1B1 of Kandulapuram Village in favour of one Sri Posani Venkataswamy S/o. late Papaiah and stated that no proceedings were issued in favour of the said temple. No references find relating to the patta claimed to have been granted to the temple but the 4 th and 5 th District Panchayat Officer and Gram Panchayat Officer did not incline to take any action against the concerned or to resume the land covered by such fake and fabricated patta. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to protect the said land as contemplated under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act , 1905. 7. In both writ petitions, respective writ petitioners are making allegations against the other, on the ground that the land was allotted to the temple by the revenue department and the other writ petitioner states that no land was allotted to the temple and they are encroachers and only Ac.0.02 ½ cents were issued in favour of one Sri Posani Venkataswamy S/o. late Papaiah. 8. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments, the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) The petitioner reveals all material facts; (c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) Grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. 9. The High Court should be lofty in entertaining any writ petitions where material facts referred to in the Writ Petition involves disputed facts. The High Court may not be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner and the same merits, in accordance with law thus must relegated parties a remedy of civil suit. 10. 9. The High Court should be lofty in entertaining any writ petitions where material facts referred to in the Writ Petition involves disputed facts. The High Court may not be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner and the same merits, in accordance with law thus must relegated parties a remedy of civil suit. 10. Wherein the present petition, complex question of fact, is to be determined and requires oral evidence before taken. The Writ Petitioner in W.P. No.4371 of 2021 states that no patta was issued or granted in favour of the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No.11039 of 2021 wherein the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No.11039 of 2021 asserts that a patta was granted in favour of the petitioner herein. As seen from the facts in both the writ petitions, disputed question of facts involved. As such this Court is not inclined to adjudicate this matter as there are serious disputes involved in the present Writ Petitions. 11. The 5 th respondent-Tahsildar, filed counter affidavit in W.P. No.4371 of 2021, asserting that as per Section 58 of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, the burial grounds and certain other porambokes are vested with the Grama Panchayat and as per G.O.Ms.No.188, P.R.R.D-PTS-IV department dated 21.07.2011, the Gram Panchayat is competent to remove encroachments, if any, in the burial grounds. In view of the amendment made to Sub Section (1) of Section-58 of P.R. Act, 1994 (Act No.14 of 2021), the Gram Panchayat is competent authority to take necessary action to evict the encroachers in Gramakantam lands. 12. The 4 th respondent-Gram Panchayat filed its counter affidavit stating that the 5 th respondent has issued D-Form patta assigning the subject land to the petitioner temple and the 5 th respondent also issued proceedings dated 27.07.2013, clarifying that the subject land has been assigned to the petitioner-temple basing on which the answering respondent has accorded building permission dated 14.11.2014 vide permission in B.A. No. 13/14-15. It is relevant to state the averment that the 6 th respondent appears to have made a complaint to the answering respondent against the petitioner and basing on such complaint, the answering respondent along with 5 th respondent visited the subject shops, threatened to dispossess them without issuing any notice is neither true nor correct and the same is hereby denied emphatically and the 4 th respondent neither visited the shops nor threatened to dispossess, but, the said allegation is invented for the purpose of preferring this Writ Petition. 13. After considering the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition and the Counter Affidavit, there are disputed facts involved in this case. Hence, evidence is required to adjudicate the issue. This Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot accrue evidence. Hence, these Writ Petitions are liable to be disposed of directing the respective petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the competent Civil Court, which is competent to decide the issue. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of relegating the issues to the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. However, both the petitioners and respondents in the respective Writ Petitions shall maintain status quo as on today for a period of four weeks. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to initiate appropriate Proceedings before the competent Court. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.