SYED KAZIM BAHADUR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute brought before this Court in this writ petition bristles with factual' controversies relating to the title and possession of the land and property. As could be seen from the impugned show- cause notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad dated 18-1-2001, the land in question is a tank bed and therefore it belongs to the Government. This claim of the Mandal Revenue Officer is contested before the learned single Judge contending that the subject land was gifted to the appellant by way of gift deed dated 25-4-1968. What transpires from the claim and counter claim of the respondent authorities and the appellant petitioner is a dispute relating to the title and possession of the land and property.

(2.) It is quite often said and reiterated that primarily Article 226 is not meant to establish the rights but it is meant to enforce the established rights. The dispute regarding the title and possession cannot be effectively resolved in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution only on the basis of affidavits and counter-affidavits, without tendering witnesses for cross-examination. The appellant is having an effective, alternative, comprehensive remedy by way of private law review, for declaration, injunction and damages before the Civil Court.

(3.) We do not find any extraordinary situation or circumstance which could justify the appellant/petitioner to rush to this Court under Article 226 without resorting to such effective and comprehensive legal remedies. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order made by the learned single Judge.