Telangana High Court
Ulfat Patel vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 21 December, 2020
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19239 of 2020
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering and disposing of the representations dated 07.07.2020 made by the petitioner in respect of the land i.e., Sarf E Khas admeasuring Ac.22-27 Gts, situated at Jalpally Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, land admeasuring Ac.6.00 guntas in Survey Nos.3/A, 3/E, 4/1/A, 4/1/1/E and 4 of Shahajadi Begum Village, Shamshabad Mandal, the land admeasuring Ac. 8.02 gutnas in Survey Nos.1/A, 1/AA, 1/E, 2/A, 2/AA, 2/E, 3/A, 3/AA, 3/E, 4/1/A, 4/1/AA, 4/1/E, 4/2/A and 4/2/A,A Shahajadi Begum Village, Shamshabad Mandal, the land admeasuring Ac.2.12 guntas in Survey Nos.180, 181/1, 180/A, 180/AA, 180/E, 181/A, 181/AA and 181/E/1 of Jalpalli Village, Balapur and the land admeasuring Ac.16.09 guntas in Survey Nos. 182 and 183 of Jalpalli Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Ms. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA for respondent No.2, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities for respondent No.4, and 2 Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent No.5. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in spite of giving a representation to the official respondents on 07.07.2020, till date no orders are passed thereon. Learned counsel further states that respondent No.5, without having any right, is trying to get the layout approved by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, and that without hearing the objections of the petitioner, the unofficial respondents may get the final layout approved. In case, the final layout is approved, the respondent No.5 will convert the land into plots and sell away to various persons, which will not only lead to multiplicity of litigation, but also the very purpose of filing of the suit by the petitioner will be defeated.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has stated that as on date, draft layout proposals have been considered and technically approved and DC letter has been issued to respondent No.5 on 19.07.2020 for payment of DC, PC & other charges, and that as and when respondent No.5 remits the same, the HMDA authorities will process the draft layout and pass necessary orders thereon.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 has vehemently opposed the grant of any order by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and more so, when the petitioner has suppressed the material facts. 3 Learned counsel further states that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has earlier filed W.P.Nos.25844 and 27275 of 2019 and 15944 of 2020. That this Court has dismissed W.P.No.27275 of 2019 and W.P.No.15944 of 2020 filed by the petitioner, as he has already filed a comprehensive suit. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner, as on date, does not have any title to the property nor he is in possession, and he is only claiming through an oral gift. That unless and until the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed, he cannot make any claim over the suit schedule land or can he file any objection to the draft layout. Learned counsel states that the petitioner is amply protected under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and has prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. On queried by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the suit filed by the petitioner, he has already filed two Interlocutory Applications, one not to alienate the suit schedule lands and another not to interfere with his possession, but due to shut down of the Courts because of Covid-19, the matters are not being taken up and in case, the final layout is approved in the interregnum, the petitioner will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the authorities may be directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner before approving the final layout.
4
8. Even if the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are to be accepted and the authorities are directed to take into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner, it will not serve any purpose as there are serious disputed questions of title and facts which the Commissioner under the HMDA Act cannot adjudicate.
9. It is well accepted principle of law that where serious disputed questions of title or facts are involved, it is only the competent Civil Court which can give a finding regarding the title, possession etc., based on the evidence on record. The authorities under the HMDA Act do not have the power to decide the title to the property where two rival claimants are seriously disputing the title of one another. Neither the Commissioner nor any other authority under the Act have the jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between two rival parties in respect of the immovable properties. It is only the Civil Courts that have the exclusive domain and jurisdiction to adjudicate the right/title/dispute between the rival parties in respect of the immovable properties. It is only the Civil Court which can record the evidence and taking into account the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, adjudicate the rights of the parties. The role of the Commissioner is only to see if the party applying for layout permission is having prima facie title or not and whether the layout proposal submitted is in accordance with the Act, Rules, By-laws, and various G.Os., issued from time to time. 5 Ultimately, if an decree is passed by a Civil Court, the same is not only binding on the parties but also the authorities concerned.
10. The Three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha1, at para 14, has held as under:
14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have gone into the question of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant.
11. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court by way of a comprehensive suit being O.S.No.1096 of 2019 for declaration of title, consequential injunction and to declare the sale deeds as null and void. Unless and until the said suit is decreed and the petitioner is declared as the owner of the suit schedule lands, he does not have any right over the subject property. In case any layout is approved by respondent No.2 or any building permission is granted by the Municipality, the same will always be subject to the final result of the suit filed by the petitioner and respondent No.5 or any one claiming through him will always be bound by the said decree likely to be passed by the Civil Court.
1 (1969) 2 SCC 187 6
12. In view of the above, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is so advised, he is free to move the Civil Court and file an Interlocutory Application for appropriate relief in the pending suit.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 21.12.2020 va/sur