Telangana High Court
Herekar Shankar Lal vs State Of Telangana on 17 November, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.14284 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:
"to issue appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.368 to an extent of 702 sq.yards (out of 1452 sq.yards or 0-12 gts) of Chandanagar Village, Serilingamapply Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without following due process of law, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.368 to an extent of 702 sq.yards (out of 1452 sq.yards or 0-12 gts) of Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District including forcible dispossession of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders..."
2. Heard the arguments of Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for Sri K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3. The material placed on record and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner reveal that the petitioner was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-12 gts in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he purchased the said land from Sri K.Ranga Reddy, under agreement of sale dated 16.05.1984 and thereafter, got validated the same by paying deficit stamp duty before the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy 2 District. Originally, the said Sri K.Ranga Reddy, was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.4-09 gts in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and out of said land, an extent of Ac.3-12 gts of land was acquired by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), an extent of Ac.0-25 gts of land was acquired by Manjeera Drinking Water Pipeline and the remaining extent of land i.e, Ac.0-12 gts was sold to the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that out of said Ac.0-12 gts (1452 sq.yards) of land, the petitioner sold land admeasuring 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 in favour of Mohammed Saber and four others through registered sale deed bearing document No.10040/2016 dated 03.09.2016 and retained the remaining extent of land i.e, 702 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 with him. It is contended that though the subject land is not a Government land, the respondent No.2- HMDA, without having any manner of right, title or interest, is trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land, without following due process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another1 and ultimately prayed to grant the relief as indicated above.
4. The material placed on record and the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.2 by the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA would reveal that an extent of Ac.3-12 gts of land in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally 1 (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 134 3 Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was acquired by the HUDA on 31.10.1981 and the left over land in Sy.No.368 is covered with graveyards and Manjira water pipeline. Therefore, the land, which is under public utility, cannot be claimed by the petitioner. There is no open land in occupation of the petitioner or any other person. It is submitted that there is no illegal interference by the respondent No.2 as alleged by the petitioner and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1 would contend that the petitioner is not the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-12gts in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that the petitioner or any other person, are not in possession of any part of the land in Sy.No.368. It is further contended that factual matrix are involved in this case and they cannot be adjudicated in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. As seen from the material placed on record, the contention of the petitioner is that out of the land admeasuring Ac.4-09 gts in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, an extent of Ac.3-12 gts of land was acquired by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), an extent of Ac.0-25 gts of land was acquired by Manjeera Drinking Water Pipeline and the remaining extent of land i.e, Ac.0-12 gts was purchased by the petitioner from Sri K.Ranga Reddy. Thereafter, out of said Ac.0-12 gts (1452 4 sq.yards) of land, the petitioner sold land admeasuring 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 in favour of Mohammed Saber and four others, under registered sale deed dated 03.09.2016 and retained the remaining extent of land i.e, 702 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 with him. Whereas, the contention of the respondents is that an extent of Ac.3-12 gts of land in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was acquired by the HUDA on 31.10.1981 and the left over land in Sy.No.368 is covered with graveyards and Manjira water pipeline and that there is no vacant land in said Sy.No.368. Therefore, there is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the petitioner over the land admeasuring 702 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also the title and possession of Mohammed Saber and four others, over the land admeasuring 750 sq.yards in Sy.No.368. Furthermore, there is also a question of fact whether there is any interference by the respondent No.2 over the lands in question. These factual aspects are required to be dealt with and determined by the Civil Court, where evidence is required to be lead and documents are required to be marked to arrive at a conclusion. Merely examining the pleadings and the photocopies of documents filed before this Court, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot determine that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of 702 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and grant restraint order as prayed for. 5
7. In Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"Para 10: The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. Maybe, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily."
The facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the decision referred above. In the instant case, the Government has not contemplated to invoke Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Here, the petitioner is claiming title and possession over the land admeasuring 702 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the petitioner. Furthermore, there is a serious dispute that the petitioner is not at all in possession of any extent of land in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and hence, no relief of injunction restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioner till the disposal as indicated in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be granted in favour of the petitioner. It is settled law that if, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the 6 Constitution of India, complicated questions of fact which require a regular and full-fledged trial are involved, it is but prudent that the Court should refrain itself from entertaining such petition and relegate the party to the normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit. In the given circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought by him in this Writ Petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court, in accordance with law.
8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 17th November, 2020 scs