ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter. He is also a former Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh. He filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in illegally expropriating the area ‘B1’ which is subject matter of O.S. No. 256 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the area ‘B2’ which is subject matter of O.P. No. 120 of 1987 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereafter called ‘the Special Court’) as illegal, unjust, capricious, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice. He also seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the property covered by ‘B1’ and ‘B2’ to him and to pay compensation towards damages.
2. The case on hand has a chequered history. There has been a long standing litigation between the petitioner and the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the land in Sy. No. 9 (part) of Hyderabad village, admeasuring considerable extent of land which the Government claims to be the tank bed land of Hussainsagar lake. The Government initiated proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioner successfully challenged these proceedings before this Court in W.P. No. 1414 of 1977. By an order dated 20-1-1978, this Court quashed the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act and gave liberty to the government to file appropriate suit claiming title. Accordingly, in 1985, a suit for declaration of title and possession being O.S. No. 1497 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the meanwhile, Special Court for trying the land grabbing cases was constituted. The suit O.S. No. 1497 of 1985 was transferred to the Special Court as L.G.C. No. 61 of 1990. The Special Court, by a judgment and decree dated 16-4-1993 declared the petitioner as land grabber and directed him to deliver possession to the Government which was declared as owner of the land. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a Civil Appeal No. 2063 of 1999. By a judgment reported as Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P., , the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal. Thereafter, the respondents took possession of the property which is subject matter of L.G.C. No. 61 of 1990 and all the structures thereon were demolished.
3. The petitioner mainly contends that the entire land in his possession popularly known as ‘JALADRUSYAM’ is not subject matter of the land grabbing case before the Special Court and, therefore, the respondents could not have taken possession of the entire land. According to the petitioner, the land marked as ‘A’ in the plan annexed to the writ petition admeasuring Acs.2.28 gts. in Sy. No. 9/15, 9/16 and 9/17 only forms part of the litigation which ultimately culminated in the Supreme Court in favour of the Government. The land marked as ‘B1’ admeasuring Ac.0.09 gts. in Sy. No. 9/18 is subject matter of the suit being O.S. No. 246 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court. Likewise, according to the petitioner, an extent of Ac.0.22 gts. marked as ‘B2’ admeasuring about 6006 Sq.yds. (Ac.1.10 gts.) is subject matter of O.P. No. 120 of 1987. Therefore, the respondents could not have taken possession of the land marked as ‘B1’ and ‘B2’. The delineation of land as ‘A’, ‘B1’ and ‘B2’ is as per the plan annexed to the writ petition.
4. The writ petition has been coming up for admission since 8-7-2002. It was listed before this Court at least on seven occasions for admission. On 20-3-2003, my learned brother, Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy made the following observations.
5. When the case is called, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment on the ground that Senior Counsel is appearing.
6. As seen from the docket, it is evident that the matter underwent seven adjournments since 8-7-2002. In view of the same, it is presumed that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested in getting the writ petition admitted and there is no urgency in the matter.
7. Post the writ petition for admission after four weeks.
8. When the matter was listed before me on 21-4-2003, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner and the request was rejected. This Court heard the learned Advocate General. Subsequently, Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and submitted a note of his submissions.
9. The main contention raised by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that in the guise of the Supreme Court’s order, the land earmarked as ‘B1’ and ‘B2’ cannot be taken possession by the Government as the proceedings are still pending before the Civil Court. He, however, does not dispute or deny that the petitioner was unsuccessful before the Supreme Court and that while taking possession, the Revenue Divisional Officer has followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 15 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988.
10. Per contra, learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh submits that even during the trial before the Special Court, in order to dispel any doubts regarding identity of the property, Exs.X1 to X4 were marked. These exhibits clearly show particulars of schedule land of land grabbing case. The trial before the Special Court was conducted with regard to the land covered by Exs.X1 to X4. According to the learned Advocate General, in execution of the orders of the Special Court, the property was delivered to the Government on 27-11-1996 itself. The petitioner approached this Court and filed writ petition after five years pleading that some of the land is not covered by the judgment and decree of the Special Court. The plan attached to the writ petition is substantially different to the plan marked and considered before the Special Court. The Special Court adjudicated the claim of the rival parties in respect of the land covered by Exs.X1 to X4 and expropriated the land and the petitioner did not demur. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is misconceived. The property claimed by the petitioner i.e., ‘B1’ and ‘B2’ is not a separate property, but it forms part of the land covered by Exs.X1 to X4, which is subject matter of land grabbing case. The petitioner has not availed the remedy under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the remedy claimed by way of writ petition is barred by time. Leaned Advocate General also submits that a writ petition of this nature disputing title and seeking possession is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan, , Union of India v. T.R.Varma, , Indu Bhushan v. State of U.P., and State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, . He would also urge that ordinarily a writ petition for resolving disputed questions of fact would not lie.
11. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I have perused the various orders passed by this Court in earlier writ petition, the orders passed by the Special Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (supra). For reasons indicated hereunder, I am not able the accept the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri S. Ramachandra Rao.
12. It is well settled that a dispute regarding title to the property or a writ petition seeking possession is not maintainable. This is especially so when the parties before the Court have already availed common law remedy or alternative remedies in common law provided under the special enactments, all the rights and liabilities have to be worked out before those authorities and writ petition, that too in relation to execution of an order of Civil Court is not maintainable. A reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITI Commission, , Jai Singh v. Union of India, and Carl Still G.M.B.H. v. State of Bihar, .
13. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, a title dispute cannot be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution as it involves disputed questions of fact. It is not necessary to refer to all the precedents cited by the learned Advocate General. In a recent judgment in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, 2003 AIR SCW 3346, the Supreme Court laid down as under.
14. A writ petition is filed in public law remedy. The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well-settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute. Indisputably, a large number of private disputes between the parties and in particular the question as to whether any deed of transfer was effected in favour of M/s. Writer and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. as also whether a partition or a family settlement was arrived or not, were pending adjudication before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition primarily revolved round the order of authentication of the declaration made by one of the respondents in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The writ petition, in the factual matrix involved in the matter, could have been held to be maintainable only for that purpose and no other.
15. Having regard to the binding law laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limini. Notwithstanding this, I have also carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri S. Ramachandra Rao with reference to the record placed before the Court. After the order of the Special Court in L.G.C. No. 61 of 1990, the land was taken possession by the Government. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 200 of 2002 before the Special Court under Section 47 read with Sections 144 and 151 CPC. He prayed for a declaration that execution dated 9-2-2002 of the order of the Special Court in L.G.C. No. 61 of 1990 is illegal and arbitrary. He also sought a consequential direction to the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector to forthwith restore possession of the entire premises covered by panchanama pursuant to the execution and direct the respondents to compensate him to a tune of Rs. 115 Crores as claimed in the legal notice dated 14-2-2002. A Full Bench of the Special Court, by order dated 25-4-2002, elaborately considered and dismissed the application. Before the Special Court, it was inter alia contended that not only subject matter of land grabbing case, but also other land was taken possession by the respondents in illegal execution, which is bad. The Special Court dealt with this aspect of the matter as under.
16. Sri Sunil Ganu then contended that there is excess execution of the decree in the proceedings, and that not only the application schedule property was taken possession of but also the other property, which is not the subject matter of the L.G.C. This fact is totally denied in the counter. It is further stated in the counter that this allegation is imaginary and without any substance. It is stated b both the counsel that other lands are the subject matter of other two proceedings, viz., O.S. No. 246/1978 on the file of VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and W.P. No. 15724/1984 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The contention will have to be raised and decided in those proceedings, if the parties so choose and if it is open to them.
17. A reading of the above would show that respondents denied the contention that there was excess execution even before the Special Court. The order of the Special Court dated 25-4-2002 in I.A. No. 200 of 2002 has not been challenged specifically. Be that as it is, as observed by the Special Court, the land which was taken possession by the Government pursuant to the judgment and decree of the Special Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that a part of the land taken possession is subject matter of the two suits before the civil Court. When such plea cannot be raised before the Special Court itself, in my considered opinion, such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised in the writ proceedings. After perusing the judgment and decree in L.G.C. No. 61 of 1990, this Court prima faice is of the opinion that the entire land which was in possession of the petitioner was subject matter of the land grabbing case and the Government took possession of the land pursuant to the judgment and decree in accordance with plan Exs.X1 to X4, which were marked before the Special Court during the trial, delineating the land. It is only a question of fact and ordinarily this Court cannot go into this question. It is open to the petitioner to raise this contention before the Civil Court and subject to proof the Civil Court may decide the issue without being influenced by the observations made by me on this specific question raised in the writ petition.
18. The writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed as it is devoid of any merit. There shall be no order as to costs.