ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Mr. M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. A. Satyasiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. W.P. No.36646 of 2024 is filed by Mr. S. Muralidhar, Managing Director of M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, seeking, “….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in selling an extent of 1210 Sq. Yds as a Stray Bit in Lot No.10, situated in Sy.No.124 & 125 (described as Sy.No.26) Kancha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the 3rd Respondent vide confirmation-cum- allotment letter dated 01-05-2023, including the road of 30 feet situated on the Northern side of Plot No.4 and Southern side of Plot No.7 belonging to the Petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent to leave the road of 30 feet situated on the Northern side of Plot No.4 and Southern side of Plot No.7 of the Petitioner, while disposing of the stray bit at any point of time in future….” 3. Whereas, W.P. No.36415 of 2024 is filed by M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. S.Muralidhar - the petitioner in the former writ petition, seeking, “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in selling an extent of 1210 sq. Yds as a Stray Bit in Lot No.10, situated in Sy.No.124 & 125 (described as Sy.No.26) Kancha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the 3rd Respondent vide confirmation-cum- allotment letter dated 01-05-2023, including the road of 30 feet situated on the Southern side of Plot No.8, belonging to the Petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent to leave the road of 30 feet situated on the Southern Side of the Plot No.8, of the Petitioner, while disposing of the stray bit at any point of time in future….” 4. Lis involved in both the writ petitions and the parties thereto are one and the same and, therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER i) The petitioner in W.P. No.36646 of 2024 is the absolute owner of Plot Nos.4 and 7, admeasuring 573.14 and 522 square yards, respectively, in Survey Nos.124 and 125, forming part of Layout of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Co-Op. Housing Society Limited (‘FCIECOHSL Layout’), situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.15138 and 15703 of 2024, both dated 17.08.2024, respectively. ii) Whereas, the petitioner in W.P. No.36415 of 2024 is the absolute owner of semi-finished residential building consists of Stilt + Four Floors with a total built up area of 12,705 square feet, constructed on Plot No.8, admeasuring 498 square yards, situated at the very same Layout, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.661 of 2024, dated 09.01.2024. It is relevant to note that the Vendor of the petitioner obtained building permit order dated 04.08.2022 and thereafter constructed the aforesaid building. iii) Even Plot Nos.7 and 8 were got regularized by the GHMC Officials under Layout Regularization Scheme, vide proceedings dated 04.08.2011 and 07.03.2009 respectively, whereas Plot No.4 was regularized by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 15.11.2007. iv) Both Plot Nos.4 and 7 have 30 feet road on northern side of Plot No.4 and Southern side of Plot No.7 as is evident in the aforesaid sale deeds as well as the Layout. On the western side of the subject Plot, after Plot No.7, there is a 120 feet wide road known as DLF Road and the said 30 feet road connects the plots with the DLF Road. This is the only access to both the plots from the beginning. Even Plot No.8 is having 30 feet road on its southern side. On the western side of the subject Plot, after Plot No.7, there is a 120 feet wide road known as DLF Road and the said 30 feet road connects the plots with the DLF Road. This is the only access to both the plots from the beginning. Even Plot No.8 is having 30 feet road on its southern side. In the plan enclosed to the building permission granted by the GHMC Authorities, the said road is shown v) While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 - HMDA sold an extent of 1210 square yards of land by way of e-auction as Lot No.10 in Survey Nos.124 and 125 (described as Survey No.26) of Kancha Gachibowli, Rangareddy District, and respondent No.3 was the successful bidder in respect of the same for an amount of Rs.24,80,50,000/- vide letter dated 01.05.2023. However, the aforesaid 30 feet road has been included in the said extent of 1210 square yards. vi) Despite bringing the fact that the said road is the only access to the petitioner plots and the same is being used as a public road for several decades, to the notice of respondent No.2, it did not respond. Now, respondent No.3 is attempting to take over the possession of Lot No.10 in Survey No.26 without handing over the same to him by respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions. 6. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2 - HMDA i) Urban Land Ceiling Act has no relevance to the layout in which one of the plots is said to have regularized. ii) The petitioner has not made the GHMC as party to the present writ petitions. iii) The petitioner’s plots do not have any approach road since the auctioned land parcel is a Government land. iv) Pursuant to the proposals received from the District Collector, Rangareddy District, HMDA issued notification on 06.02.2023 for sale of Straybit/land in Survey No.26, admeasuring 1210 square yards, situated at Kancha - Gachibowli Village and conducted e-auction on 01.03.2023. Respondent No.3 stood as successful bidder for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,80,50,000/- by remitting Rs.5.00 lakhs as EMD. Respondent No.3 also paid an amount of Rs.20,88,72,405/- and balance to be paid is Rs.3,91,77,595/-. v) The aforesaid straybit/land parcel is purely Government land situated in Survey No.26 of Kancha-Gachibowli Village. Respondent No.3 stood as successful bidder for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,80,50,000/- by remitting Rs.5.00 lakhs as EMD. Respondent No.3 also paid an amount of Rs.20,88,72,405/- and balance to be paid is Rs.3,91,77,595/-. v) The aforesaid straybit/land parcel is purely Government land situated in Survey No.26 of Kancha-Gachibowli Village. vi) The plots of the petitioner form part of private land and the aforesaid layout and they are not way related to Survey No.26 as it is a Government land. There is no road existing in the auctioned land. The said land is under the custody of Revenue Department and they will hand over the physical possession of auctioned lands to the successful bidder on payment of total sale consideration amount and will also execute sale deed. vii) The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching Civil Court against his/its vendor but he/it cannot ventilate his/its grievance under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. viii) With the aforesaid submissions, HMDA sought to dismiss both the writ petitions. 7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is the contention of the petitioner that they are the absolute owners of the subject plots having purchased under the aforesaid sale deeds from his/its vendor. They are in Survey Nos.124 and 125 forming part of FCIECOHSL Layout, situated at Gachibowli Village. 30 feet road connects to the subject plots from 120 feet DLF Road. In the e-auction conducted by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 participated and he became successful bidder in respect of stray bit i.e. Lot No.10, admeasuring 1210 square yards. But, the said 30 feet road is included in the said extent of 1210 square yards and thereby obstructing the access to the subject plots. ii) Whereas, it is contended by the HMDA that the stray bit/lot No.10 is located in Survey No.26, which is a Government land. No road is in existence in the said land. Therefore, the question of inclusion of 30 feet road in 1210 square yards of land and thereby obstructing the petitioner to reach his plots does not arise. iii) Insofar as Plot No.8 is concerned, perusal of copy of sale deed bearing document No.661 of 2024, dated 09.01.2024 under which the petitioner purchased Plot No.8 from his Vendor, Mr. Therefore, the question of inclusion of 30 feet road in 1210 square yards of land and thereby obstructing the petitioner to reach his plots does not arise. iii) Insofar as Plot No.8 is concerned, perusal of copy of sale deed bearing document No.661 of 2024, dated 09.01.2024 under which the petitioner purchased Plot No.8 from his Vendor, Mr. Konidena Koteswara Rao, would disclose that in the schedule on southern side, 25 feet wide public road is mentioned. Subsequently, the petitioner and his Vendor, Mr. Konidena Koteswara Rao executed a Deed of Exchange vide document No.10695 of 2017, dated 21.09.2017. By virtue of the said exchange deed, the said Plot No.8 was transferred in favour of Mr. Konidena Koteswara Rao, who in turn transferred Plot No.104 in favour of M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited. In the said deed of exchange, southern side boundary of plot No.104 is mentioned as ’30 feet wide road’. The link document i.e., sale deed bearing document No.6847 of 1981, dated 07.11.1981 in respect of Plot No.8, southern side boundary is mentioned as ’25 feet wide road’. Even in the sale deed bearing document No.4453 of 1981 under which FCIECOHSL had purchased an extent of Acs.20.00 guntas in Survey Nso.124 and 125 from the original pattadars, southern boundary is mentioned as ‘Main Road from Hyderabad to Lingampally Village. iv) Insofar as Plot Nos.4 and 7 are concerned, in the sale deed bearing document No.15138 of 2024, dated 07.08.2024, under which the petitioner purchased Plot No.4, western side boundary is mentioned as ‘120 feet wide road’ and northern boundary is mentioned as ’33 feet wide road’, whereas in the sale deed bearing document No.15703 of 2024, dated 17.08.2024, under which, plot No.7 was purchased, western side boundary is mentioned as ‘100 feet wide road’ and southern side boundary is mentioned as ’33 feet wide road’. v) Basing on the aforesaid sale deeds, it is contended by the petitioner that there exists 100 feet wide road and 30 feet wide road to the subject plots connecting from 120 feet wide DLF Road, whereas it is contended by respondent No.2 that there is no road in existence as Survey No.26 is a Government land and the straybit/land admeasuring 1210 square yards allotted to respondent No.3 is situated in Survey No.26. In view of the above, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to identification of property. In view of the above, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to identification of property. vi) The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that there are the following factual aspects: a) According to the petitioners, their plots are in Survey Nos.124 and 125 of Gachibowli Village. b) According to respondent No.2, the land auctioned by it is in Survey No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village. c) To the northern side of Plot No.4 and southern side of Plot No.7, there is 33 feet road, while on western side of Plot No.4, 120 feet wide road and on the western side of Plot No.7, there is 100 feet wide road, which are evident from registered sale deeds as well as layout. d) 100 feet and 30 feet wide roads to the subject plots connects from 120 feet wide road known as DLF Road. e) The aforesaid roads are only access to both the plots from the DLF Road. f) Plot No.8 is having 30 feet wide road on its southern side. g) The petitioner is placing reliance on the building permit order granted by the GHMC Authorities. h) According to respondent No.2, the land in Survey No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village is Government Land. i) Respondent No.2 received proposals from the District Collector, Rangareddy District. Therefore, it has issued auction notice dated 06.02.2023 for conducting sale of straybit/land admeasuring 1210 square yards. vii) The writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., [ (2004) 3 SCC 553 ] viii) When a writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining the petition under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule as held by the Apex Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 291. The said principle was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Agni Aviation Consultants v. State of Telangana,  2020 SCC OnLine TS 1462. However, it is a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule as held by the Apex Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 291. The said principle was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Agni Aviation Consultants v. State of Telangana,  2020 SCC OnLine TS 1462. ix) As discussed above, in the present case, there are serious/complicated questions of fact. This Court cannot consider the same in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute is with regard to identification of property. According to the petitioner, the subject plots are in Survey Nos.124 and 125 of Gachibowli Village, whereas according to respondent No.2, the property sold by it pursuant to the e-auction notice dated 06.02.2023 admeasuring 1210 square yards is in Survey No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli village. Boundaries given in the said sale deeds, layout and building permit order accorded by the GHMC Authorities, existence of public roads etc., this Court cannot consider and adjudicate in a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court and establish its right. The petitioner cannot seek to adjudication of serious disputed/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petitions. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887 . Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain present writ petitions on the aforesaid grounds. x) It is also apt to note that Mr. M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that the Government has to file counter to show that the land auctioned by respondent No.2 is in Survey No.26 and it is a government land. But, the petitioner did not array the District Collector, Rangareddy District and the Tahsildar concerned as party to the present writ petitions. They have made HMDA and the Principal Secretary, MA & UD as parties to the present writ petitions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot expect a counter from respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the aforesaid aspects. In fact, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed only on the said ground of non-joinder of proper parties i.e., the District Collector, Rangareddy District and the Tahsildar concerned. Therefore, the petitioner cannot expect a counter from respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the aforesaid aspects. In fact, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed only on the said ground of non-joinder of proper parties i.e., the District Collector, Rangareddy District and the Tahsildar concerned. xi) It is also relevant to note that Mr. M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, contended that respondent No.3 has not paid the bid amount within the timelines mentioned in the e-auction notice. Therefore, the auction has to be cancelled. He has also placed reliance on the decision in Shyam Trading Co., Secunderabad v. M. Krishna , [ 2010 (4) ALT 97 ] . As discussed above, the auction amount is Rs.24,80,50,000/-. Respondent No.3 had paid an amount of Rs.20,88,72,405/- and balance to be paid is Rs.3,91,77,595/-. Therefore, it is for respondent No.2 to consider the said aspects. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the same. xii) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner failed to make out any case. Therefore, both the writ petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8. CONCLUSION Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach competent Civil Court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions shall stand closed.