Telangana High Court
S.Durgaiah vs Union Of India And 1 Other on 22 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.7867 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came to be filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with his property admeasuring 1057 sq.yards in Sy.No.49 of Yapral Village, Secunderabad, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently restrain the respondents from interfering with the property.
2. It is the case of petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring 1057 sq.yards out of Ac.0-17 gts., in Sy.No.49 of Yapral Village, Secunderabad, which was allotted to him vide Lok Adalat award dated 11.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.488 of 2014. It is further case of the petitioner that during the year 2019, the defence personnel under the respondent No.1 interfered with his possession, then he represented before the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad and Tahsildar, Alwal, to conduct survey for identification and classification of the land. It is further case of the petitioner that the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad, vide letter dated 18.04.2019 requested the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, to survey the land. Acting on the said letter, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records Medchal-Malkajgiri District, addressed a letter ::2::
dated 17.05.2019 to the Tahsildar, Alwal, to conduct joint survey of defence land in Sy.No.13 adjacent to Rev. Sy.No.49 situated at Yapral Village, Alwal Mandal. Inspite of the same, the Tahsildar, Alwal has not conducted survey and Smt. S.Vijayalakshmi, wife of the petitioner filed W.P.No.16711 of 2019 on the file of this Court and this Court vide Order dated 01.10.2019, directed the Mandal Surveyor, Alwal Mandal to conduct survey the land after issuing notice to all the affected parties including the petitioner therein. It is further case of the petitioner that the Mandal Surveyor has conducted survey of the land admeasuring Ac.0.17 gts., in Sy.No.49 of Yapral Village on 12-12-2019 and prepared a panchanama on 20- 12-2019 and submitted his report on 30-12-2019. In pursuance of the said survey report, the petitioner made a representation dated
03.02.2020 to the respondent No.1, enclosing the survey report and requested not to interfere with his possession and allow him to enjoy his property. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in view of the settlement of dispute by fixation of the boundaries, there is no dispute with regard to identification and localisation of the subject lands. However, on 13.03.2023, the respondent No.1 has sent his jawans and interfering with his peaceful possession.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent No.1 has sent his men and interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and also foisted a false complaint against ::3::
the petitioner and acting on the said complaint, respondent No.2 summoned the petitioner to the police station and detained him for hours together and forced the petitioner not to proceed with the construction work being carried on the subject property. It is submitted that the respondents have no power or authority to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for.
4. Per contra, Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondent No.1 has vehemently contended that the petitioner, having stated that the defence personnel are interfering with the possession of his land, has not made the said Officer as party respondent to the present writ petition and only Union of India, represented by its Colonel, "Q" Branch, Bolarum, Secunderabad, was made as party respondent. It is further argued that as per Article 300 of the Constitution of India and Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India, represented by its Secretary and in the absence of making the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, as party respondent, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further argued that the dispute essentially relates to the possession of land admeasuring 1057 sq.yards out of Ac.0-17 gts., in Sy.No.49, situated at Yapral ::4::
Village, Secunderabad, between the applicant and the respondent. It is contended that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.
5. It is not in dispute that the relief sought by the petitioner in this Writ Petition against the respondents pertains to land admeasuring 1057 sq.yards out of Ac.0-17 gts., in Sy.No.49, situated at Yapral Village, Secunderabad. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has made an application to conduct survey. The petitioner and respondents are claiming rights in respect of the subject land and inviting this Court to decide the question relating to right, title and possession of the subject land. In view of the various claims between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to identification, classification, extent and boundaries of the subject land, the writ petition is not the remedy to resolve the disputes inter se between the parties, in the absence of examining the documents of title and possession of the respective parties. The question as to who is the owner of the land in question, whether the petitioner was/is in possession of the subject land and, if so, from which date, how and in what circumstances, he claimed to be in its possession, whether his possession could be regarded as legal or not qua its real owner, etc, were some of the material questions which arose for consideration in the writ petition. These questions, in my view, are pure questions of fact, which could be answered one way or ::5::
the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly."
(emphasis supplied).
7. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
1
(1992) 4 SCC 61 2 (2003) 6 SCC 230 ::6::
"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 Article 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."
It is well settled law that this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possession of the parties in the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance.
8. 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 and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 22.01.2024 scs