In Mohan Pand.eg v. llshr- Ranl RaJgarlcr'l the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may 5e pleased to Direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner daled 19-2-2024 by handing over and allot the house Number of the petitionr:r House plot to an extent of 30 x 40 Plot No.l Sy.No. 467 /1 7 situated at Jamnikunta Municipality, Karimnagar, Karimnagar district forthwith pending disposal of ttre Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.PADMA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR R.EDDY WRIT PETITION No.2663 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "... to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandarnus or any other appropriate writ direction order or orders declaring the actions of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the representation dated 19.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner and not handing over tl.e house plot to an extent of 3O x 4O, plot No.l in Sy.No.467/ 17, situated at Jammikunta Municipality, Karimnagar District as illegal, arbitrary and contrarJr to law and violation of Article 3OOA of the Constitution of India and principl,es of natural justice and consequently direct tlre Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to hand over the said house plot and to pass ..."

2. The claim of the petitioner is that on considering the application submitted by his father i.e., Sri Patha Rajaiah, Government has assigned a house site to an extent of 30 x 40 area on 19.f0.1989. It is stated that he also obtained permission from tJre Gram Panchayat, Kothapalli, for construction of small tin roof house vide Proceeding No.66/89, dated 3O.12.1989. Since then, he has been residing in the said tin roof house due to his poor financial status. However, the said tin roof house was now in dilapidated condition.

3. It is further stated that when the petitioner made efforts to construct pucca house, removing the dilapidated structure, the neighbouring respondents are interfering \{'ith his peaceful 2 possession and causing encroachments. Since he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and taking ad'rantage of 'his position in the society, at the instance of the party in power, the local politicians are interfering with his possr:ssion over the subject property.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is tllat ttrough he submitted a representation to respondent .Nos.2 to 4 to take action against respondent Nos.S to 7 and :rand over the assigned house site to him, they did not take a<:tion. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner filed the prcsent writ petition.

5. [n vieu, of the serious disputes with reganl to right, title and possession of the subject property, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the absence _of examination of the documcnts rclating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightfu. owner of the land in qucstion; who is in possession of the su:ject propertv, and i[ so, since when, how, and under what :ircumstances they claim to bc in possession; whether such possession can bc rcgardcd as lcgal vis-A-vis the true owner, etc., are material 3 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 adduc'ed 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 Hontrle Supreme Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rights.

6. In Mohan Pand.eg vs. llshr- Ranl RaJgarlcr'l the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6: xxxx..... It hr,s repeatedlg been held. bg this Court as also bg various High Courts tltat o regular suit is the appropiate retnedg relating ao proryrtA rights betueen for settlement of diqu:€s private persons and thot tfe refledA under Article 226 of the Constitution slnll not be available except uthere uiolation of sonte statutory dutg on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, th.e Courl tuill issue appropiale directon to the outhoitg concented. If tle real gievanrce of the respondertt is ogc,inst the initiation of criminal proeedings, and the orders possed and steps taken tlct@n" slg must auail of the remedg under the general la ut irc.fudirq tlc Cimirnl Procedure Code' constitutio nal iuisdiction to be l'|rc Hroh C-ourl rterol . under lhe It is not intended to twt albw s. for l. are auail used for decidino au. ciuil or cn '(t ggzl + sccot 4 the ordtnaru remedies bu uau of a suit or applicati('n auailable to a titiqant. The iu risdiction is soecial and extra crdirwry and sfiguld 49t b e exercisctd castaLJlu gLlightlu. " (empha.;is supplied)

7. ln Dwarka Prasad Agarutal v. B.D. Agarutal2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "The Hrlth Court while exercising a pouter of judi,ial review is concented with illegalitg, irrationalitg and proedtral improprietg of an order passed by the State or a statutory autfutritA. Remedg under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be inuoked for resoLution of a pnuate Law dispute as contra Tistinguished from a dispute inuoluingt public law character. It ts also well- settled that a wit remedg is not auailable for resolution of a properlu or q title dispute."

8. It is u.ell settled law that this Court js not having jurisdiction Lo delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possiession of the parties in rcspect of the subject property in the absence of determining the vatidity or otherwise of their entrtlement being decided at the first instancr:.

9. In vierv of the above, this Court without going into the merits of t hc case, deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioncr to approach tho competent Civil Co-rrt and seek appropriate rclief in accordance with law. '?1zoos; o scc 230 5

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petiti,on is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. \ To //TRI'E COPYII SD/. N. RAJ GOPAL S TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER riat, Hyderabad, State

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department of Telangana. The Distiict Co I lecto r, Karimangrn- d istrict, Karimnagar The Revenue Divisional officer, Huzurabad Rercnue Division, Karinmagar district The Tahsildar, Jammikunta Mandal Jammikunta, Karimnagar district Gandhi Madhu, S/o Rajamouli Aged € years, Ocrc Business, Rl/o Jammikunta Municipality Jammikunta, Karimnagar rdistrict. Takkelapalii Rajeswara Rao, S/o and age not known to the petitioner Occ- Vice Chiirman bf Jammikunta Municipality Jammikunta, Karimnagar rdistrict. One CC to SRI P.PADMA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, Higth Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies 2 ? 4 5 6 7 I PSK. GJP ?$, I I HIGH COURT DATED :30101 12025 ORDER WP.No.2663 of 2025 1:u - f,rI5 $1 Jl,lL 26 z a -5 l' I DE.Sr, nr CP cQ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7\ S i)