In Mlofian pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgariar, the Ilon,bie Supreme Court observec zr s f,) llows

Judgment

2. 3 4 6 7 o AND .[;,8 * I s ec reta ry Re ve n u e d e p a rtm e nt ll"' +:i, :J:'f,"J,:iJi 3n"?lSi,x:i rti, TheDistrictCollector,RangaReddyDist.AtKongaraKalan. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Kandukur Division' Kandukur Mandal' RagnaReddY Dist. The Mandal Revenue officer, Kandukur Mandal Ranga Reddy District' The Station House officer, at Kandukur Police station' RangaReddy Dist' Anduoula Shamger' S/o.Samuel nsgd . 3! . .vlt' R/o'H No 3-274' ilti.b"uiflrnr-gai,k-rn,irtrit',tandal,RangaReddvDistrict ilt,r6,y"3il]?ff h"sJ:*,J,ifi !fl iil,A,',i?'Jlioor"B,t?i:?:*'eRr/oHNo3- R/o. H.No.4-267, Gafoornagar, Kandukur Erlaoallv Joseph, S/o. Samuel Vanaat, Ranga ReddY District.

9. Erlaoallv Prabhakar, S/o. Jangaiah Rl/o' H No'3 -267'Gatoomagar' Kandukur HlanOal, Ranga ReddY District. l0.AndiroulaSamuel,S/o.JangaiahHNo3-274,Gafoornagar'Kandukur tt4andZl, Ranga Reddy Distict. " fi:X!,Yfl;?liih"ijo,.8,.,:ixaiah R/o H No 3-2tst Gi,roornasar, Kandukur " fi'ii8:i,*1,1,;1,[g?? S,,&,:i,",un R,o H No 4_306, Garoorrasar, Kandukur "IIESPONDENTS Petition unrje r Adicre ,)A ^c ., .f nda prayins,ha, n,he ;ffi:;,il:::.::::;,Iin?."iin::,:;:::", r*,,n, the r{igh court may be o.0", or direction ,oru writ of furandamrs. il ,.r, and harassins rr,,, 6.,tffi'" ";';;'';;'t;J::1":#ffi ,TH:ff- the fencing ar,uncl the pathway covered by 14'f<:e.r,o. ,"-n',";:':':l:: a pp roxi ma te r y o o,,,,,, ],.o""',:t, ;'r': ;1 f :T:, :,: ; i]j, :,::*:r:: Village, Kanduku. i\/:rrrrJal. Ranga Reddy District., withoul dur: pr()cess of Law, despite pendency cf (1.3. No.64 0f 2025 0n the file of the Additional Junior civil Judge' ruaheshw;rr'rnr letween the petitioner and unofficial Respondents, as being i'egar arbitrar' a r,J unjust viorative of Articre 21 and 3004 of (:onstitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition und':r S::tion 151 cpc praying that in the circumstan:es stated in the affidavit filed ir sirtrrrort of the petition, the High courr me y br,r pleased to direct the respondenls r.rr.3 to 5 not to demorish or damage thr: ferrcing around the pathway covere:d b'.r n 4' feel wide and 162, feet Length, with a tojal road area of approximately o) '.)'2. ;untas, in Sy.No.9,10,11 and 12 situate.d ar Gafoomgar Village, Kandukur rranrl;r, Ranga Reddy District., till pending disoosr:lof this writ petition in the intere,st c,r justice.

Counsel for the Petition -'r : SRI G.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsgltor the Responlents No.ltos: ASSr' GP FoR REVENUE Counsel for the Respc'rr<lents No'6to12 : the tol\owins: .RDER ,nr'*nrn*e THE I{ON, BLE SRI JU STIC E c.v .B HAS REDDY WRI T IO N No. 1605 1of 2o/25 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking following relief: 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying afhdavit' It is prayed that this Hon'ble court 'may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly ""-t^l:t:: nature oI Writ of Mandam'"' to dttl"t" the action of the 3 to 5 Respondents ln threatening and harassing the petitioners to demolish the fencing around the pathway covered by 14, feet wide at:^d r62'feet Ifngth, with a total road area of approximately 00.02 guntas, in Sy'No9'10'1 1 and 12 Situated at Gafoorngar Village' Kandukur mandal, Ranga Reddy District' without due process of Law' despite pendency of O S' No.64 of 2025 onthe hle of tn" eaaltiott^t Junior Civil Judge' Maheshwaram between the Petitioner and unofhcial nt"pot'O"t""' as being illegal arbitrary and unjust violative of Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of lndia and pass such other ord'er or' orders as this Hon'ble Court deems lit and proper in the interest of justice'"

2. It is stated that l't petitioner's father Late Sri Narayana and father of petitioner Nos'2 and 3 Late Sri Devaiah' who are brothers' along with their brcthers namely Balaiah and Merugu Sailu had jointly acquired land admeasuring to a total extent of Acs' 32'32 guntas in Survey Nos'9' 10' 11, 12,13, 14 and 15' situated at Gafoornagar Village' Kandukur Mandal' Ranga Reddy District (for short' 'the subject landJ and after partition' the subject land was divided among legal heirs arrd a L4 feet wide common pathway was mutually earmarked by all.co-owners to provide access to their respectivelands.ItisfurtherStatedthatll,g|stpetitioner,Sbrothersjointly allotted Acs. oo.o5 guntas of the subject land for a graveyard to the Scheduled Caste residents of the viilage located on the western side of the subject land. It is further stated that the unofhcial respondents' being the members of Scheduled Caste' have unlawfully started encroaching upon the -.., \ I t 2 CVBR, J W.l'.No. j6O5 j of 2O25 pathway of th': r;r-rlrlect rand of the petitioners causing t,locii.age of road and attempting to c alr age the boundary wall. It is lurther stated that the petitioners ha'e fi. r rr a suit against the unofficial respo.derLts for perpetual injunction urde c).-(i.Jrlo.6 4 0f 2025 0n the fire of Additional Junior civil Judge at Maheshwaram arcl the same is pending for consideration. ,r.he the petitioners is th a t whiie the said suit is pending, res:onrrent Nos.3 to 5 are threatening tl-re, petitioners to demolish the boundary w,rll and fencing surrounding the prsl i 1ra,ay. Hence, the present writ petition grievance of

3. Consider:C the submissions of the learned co:rnsel for petitioner and lear.n,:l Assistant Government pieader for for respondent Nos., lo 5 and with their consent, this writ per- disposed at the ad:-nis s ion stage. In view of the nature of relief this writ petition. issr ernce of notice to respondent Nos 6 to 12 Fleve nue appearing ition is being sought for in is dispensed with.

4. Prima frlck,, it appears from the iecord that there ir,; an existing pathway. Even th,trrgh rt is stated that the petitioners have le,id a 14 feet wide common pathwal' fcr il(tcess to their respective lands, r_he saici pathway is facilitating the neiglrb rL ring owners to have an ingress and egr,:s5 to reach their agricultural fie:lc s The petitioners have rightly appr,racrred the civir court and filed a sur : ;,' cre o.S.No.6 4 of 2o2s for perpetual iniunc.tion against the unofficial respon(:rcr ts either restraining them to interr.ere with the fencing laid across the pa.tlrrve 1' or claiming rights over the pathv.a1, irs absorute 4 3 CVBR' J W.P.No.16O51 of 2025 owners and the said suit is pending adjudication on the {ile of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Maheshwaram Now the Petitioners have hled the present writ petition stating that respondent Nos'3 to 5 under the guise of the interfering and making efforts to remove the unofhcial resPondents fencing of the Pathway possesslon

5. The parties to this writ petition are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right' title' and possession of the said property. In view of the serious dispute with regard to right' title ' and of the subject Property' a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve trre 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; who is 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-a-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 hled under Article 226oftheConstitutionoflndia.IthasbeenconsistentlyheldbythisCourt andtheHon'bleSupremeCourtthataregularcivilsuitistheproperremedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rights' -- -\ \ 4 CVBR.,] W.l .No.t6O5 j oIZOZS \ . ,

6. In Mlofian pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgariar, the Ilon,bie Supreme Court observec zr s f,) llows: "6: xxxx tit l Artrcle 226 o: Ii,r,; rep6a1661, been held by this Court as als,r hy vanous High Courts that ir rc3tlar suit is the appropriate remedy for settl-,merrt of disputes relating to pro pe: y rights between private persons and that rhe rr:medy under Constitution shall not be available except rvher, r violation of some Statu, 01 ,, 11 I ty on the part of a statutory authority is all€ ged. And ir.r such a case, the CoLu I ,xill issue appropriate direction to the autho ritv < oncerned. If the real grie,. atr, ie of the respondent is against the rnitia tion of criminal proceedings a rcl tlte orders passed and steps taken thereon r,he ntust avail of the remedy urrdr:r he general law including the Criminal Proc :dur:: Code. !!g Hiqh Court r:a rno I allow the constitutional iurisdiction to be u sed lbr decidine disputes. fo:l .,vhi,Jr remedies. under the qeneral law. civil r tminal, are )T CI available. It rs r4rl ! to replace the ordinary remedielbl way of a suit or ti n va lal l( a 'lo a Iitiqanl. The iurisdrction rs speci;rl an traordinarv (ercised casually or lightlv. " (ernphasis suppliedJ In Dwarl<a prasad Agarwa! v. B.D. Agarqrnlz, the Hon,ble and sho uld not br .rtended

7. Supreme Court obst:rv:C as foliows: "The High co'lr: v'lrrle exercising a power ofjudicial review is concerned with iuegality, irationa itr and procedural impropriety ol an order,assrd by the State or a statutory zLu:h.rirv. Remedy under A rticle 226of the Constilutior. of India cannot be invoked f I .esolution ofa private law dispute as c( nlra dist nguished from a dispute n, ol'rLg public law character. It is also well_set,,_,d tf at a writ remedy is not avajltl:lr: for resolution of a property or a tiue disl)ute. , g' It is welr s'€rtled law that this court is not having iu risdiction to delve into the disFrur.e; ind come to a conclusion with regard t:r right, title and possession ol tl're lartles in the absence of determininl3 tL'.: validity or OthefWiSe 0f their onl.illr)lnent being decided at the rlrst instance rt 1992) 4 Scc 6l 'i2OO3) 6 SCC 23o 5 CVBR' J W.P.No.16051 of 2025 9 Article 3O0 of the Constitution of India specifically deals with suits and proceedings involving the Government of India and State Governments pathwaY is existing Sincethereareseriousdisputedquestionsastowhetherthe in the subject land since long time' whether the easement rights are affected' whether the said pathway neighbouring owners' is depicted in the Village Naksha and whether any expenditure has been spent by the Government on the existing pathway' these are the issues which are required to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court' . 10. In view of the above discussion' this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' for granting relief as sought by the petitioners and the writ petition hled by the petitioners is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed' However, since it is stared that the petitioners have rrred a suit uide o'S'No'64 of 2025 against the unofficial respondents and the same is pending for adjudication on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Maheshwaram' the petitioners are left open to take appropriate steps, if respondent Nos 3 to 5 are interfering with the fencing of the pathway'

11. Accordingly' this Writ Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs' Misc ellaneous aPPlications' if any Pending, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CCto SRI G PRAVEEN KUMAR' Advocate I 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court f tOUTl SECTION OFFICER UC] the State of Telangana ...N M 3))'i/ o F ,< (- iI 5 JUl'i t+) 'ras. --a-: {_ HIGH COURI- DATED:13lAen02| ORDER WP.No.160ti1 of 2O2S DISMISSINGi 'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ol,'lulrr