Telangana High Court
E.Chandrasekhar Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 20 September, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Writ Petition No.12389 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the communication dt.09.12.2022 issued by the 5th Respondent to the Petitioner in the matter of refusal of granting Police protection in relation to the Petitioner land an extent of 6413 sq yards in Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction accentuated by malafides amounting to abdication of statutory duty under the Cr.P.C 1973 as also violative of Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to take all necessary steps for giving Police aid to the Petitioner against the 7th Respondent in relation thereto ..."
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri P. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner along with two others filed W.P.No.32206 of 2018 on the file of this Court assailing the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein in not providing police aid to the petitioner and others inspite of injunction order dated 12.09.2017 passed in I.A.No.1007 of 2017 in O.S.No.347 of 2017 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, in their favour in respect of land admeasuring 6413 sq.yards in Sy.No.844/1 Block-17 of Malkajgiri 2 Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. It is further submitted that this Court vide interim order dated 27.09.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.32206 of 2018, directed the respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein-police to provide police protection to the petitioner herein and others in respect of subject property as long as injunction order is subsisting in their favour. It is further submitted that the suit in O.S.No.847 of 2017 is pending and vide order dated 15.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1007 of 2017 in O.S.No.347 of 2017, the interim order was extended until further orders. It is further submitted that pending the said suit, a joint survey was conducted by the Revenue authorities (Mandal Surveyor, Malkajgiri Mandal and Mandal Surveyor, Marredpally Mandal), under the instructions of the Regional Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records, Hyderabad and a combined sketch was prepared, duly showing the demarcation of the land in Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village, and the land in Block-A, TS 2/1 (correlating to Sy.No.74) of Marredpally Village, which shows that the land belonging to the petitioners herein, is situated in Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village and in that connection, Lr.No.B/184/2018, dt.06.02.2019, was also addressed by the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal to the Regional Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records, Hyderabad and the Inspector of Survey & Land Records, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. It is further submitted 3 that when the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.32206 of 2018 tried to interfere with the possession of the writ petitioners and tried to trespass into the subject lands, the writ petitioners submitted representations to the respondent No.5-Station House Officer, Tukaram Gate Police Station but the respondent No.5 violating the interim order of this Court in W.P.No.32206 of 2018 and also interim injunction order granted by the Civil Court, has addressed a letter to the petitioner while observing that so many civil cases pending before the Hon'ble Courts in Hyderabad and Secunderabad over the schedule property existing in Sy.Nos.74 and 844 and the W.P.No.19106 of 2010 filed by the Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandal, is pending on the file of this Court, advised the petitioner to settle the issue before the Hon'ble Court, since the matter is pending vide W.P.No.19106/2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.
4. It is further submitted that the respondent No.7 herein approached the District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri, for unilateral cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.07.2013 bearing registered document No.14441/2013 of the petitioner and others. Pursuant to which, the said authority without issuing any notice to the petitioner or other owners, passed an order dated 28.02.2023 in Case No.E1/62/2023 directing cancellation of the said sale deed 4 dt.27.07.2013. Challenging the said order, W.P.No.8386 of 2023, was filed, wherein this Court vide order dated 27.03.2023 stayed the order passed by the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri. Inspite of the same, the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, went ahead with the registration of the unilateral cancellation deed presented by the Tahsildar vide document bearing No.2348/2023. Questioning the same, the petitioner and others filed W.P.No.9524 of 2023 on the file of this Court, wherein this Court vide order dated 06.04.2023, granted interim stay of the operation of the unilateral deed of cancellation bearing document No.2348/2023 dated 01.04.2023 observing that the registration of the said deed is in violation of order dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8386/2023. It is further submitted that the unofficial respondent No.7, with an intention to take possession of the petitioners land, made building construction application dated 25.11.2022 to the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. Inspite of above referred judicial orders, the Chief Executive Officer passed a speaking order dated 24.12.2022 and a contempt case vide C.C.No.455 of 2023, is pending against him.
5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is the action of the respondent No.5 in issuing the letter dated 09.12.2022 refusing to grant police protection in respect of the 5 petitioner's land in an extent of 6413 sq.yards in Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village and advising him to settle the issue before this Court as the W.P.No.19106/2010 is pending on the file of this Court, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.
6. The respondent No.7 filed counter affidavit and stated that the respondent No.7-Society purchased plot Nos.14 to 17 in the approved layout of Seva Mandal, (Shantinekaten) Society in Sy.No.74/9 of (Mahindra Hills) Marredpally Village under registered sale deeds. Originally Seva Mandal Society purchased an extent of Ac.24-00gts, in Sy.No.74/9 situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad under a registered sale deed bearing document No.823/1982 dated 27.01.1982 from its pattadar Syed Ali Abbas and the said Society made the land into house plots after obtaining layout sanction from the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad vide proceedings No.CRB-17 dated 01.10.1981 and the Ministry of Defence in their proceedings No. ULC/D11G/DEPS/1-411/78 dated 24.03.1981 issued exemption under the provision of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. It is further stated that that the land in Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village and Sy.No.74/9 of Marredpally Village, are different district boundaries. Sy.No.844/1 is in Malkajgiri Mandal Medchal-Malkajgiri District 6 (earlier in Ranga Reddy District) whereas the land in Sy.No.74/9 is in Marredpally Village, Hyderabad District. The writ petitioners under the guise of land in Sy.No.844/1, laying their hands in the Plots purchased by the Petitioner in Sy.No.74/9 of Marredpally village in the approved Layout, which has been in existence prior to the sale deed of the petitioner herein. It is further stated that the Deputy Director of Central Survey, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad submitted detailed survey report, determining the common and correct boundaries between Malkajgiri and Marredpally Villages vide file No.Rc.No.F2/2143/97dated 12-06-1998, and in his report at Para 20 under the caption findings, he stated that "there is no overlap of the boundaries of Malkajgiri and Marredpally Village". It is further submitted that as on the date of said survey and Survey report, the approved layout of Seva Mandal Society is in existence and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 has submitted that since there was no specific direction from the competent civil Court, the respondent No.5 has not acted upon the representation submitted by the petitioner.
7
8. It is relevant to refer the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.187 of 2023, wherein it was observed as follows:
"12. This Court has time and again reiterated that the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for settling private disputes between two or more individual parties. Only when such dispute partakes the character of a public injury or infraction of statutory rights and duties, the remedy of writ jurisdiction may be invoked (see Kabbakula Padma v.State of Telangana (2023(1) ALT 765 (DB) TS).
13. In the instant case, what appellants had sought for before the learned Single Judge was execution of the injunction order. A writ proceeding cannot be converted into an execution proceeding. If the appellants feel that respondent No.6 is obstructing them from enjoying the fruits of the injunction order or if there is any disobedience to or breach of the injunction order, then the remedy of the appellants would be to invoke the provisions of Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
14. Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of CPC reads as under:
2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.
(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and 8 out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
15. From the above, it is evident that if there is any disobedience to an order of injunction made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XXXIX CPC or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting injunction or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the meantime, the Court directs his release. Therefore, Rule 2A of Order XXXIX CPC provides for an adequate and efficacious remedy to a person who is aggrieved by disobedience to or breach of an injunction order granted in his favour.
16. That being so, this court is of the view that petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police aid to enforce or implement an order of injunction or to restrain persons from interfering with the order of injunction should notbe ordinarily entertained unless an element of injury to the public or infraction of statute is made out. Otherwise, it would amountto entering into an arena of private dispute(s)."
9. In the instant case, the respondent No.5 vide impugned letter dated 09.12.2022 has rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of police aid by examining the inter se rights of the parties with regard to title and possession and also recording a finding that the property admeasuring 6413 sq.yards situated at Opp:
Delhi Public School, is falling in Sy.No.74 of Maredpally Paigah village, as per the previous Deputy Director, Survey and Land 9 Records, Hyderabad, survey report falling in overlapping area of Sy.No.74 of Marredpally Paigah Village and SY.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village. Further, the respondent No.5 also recorded a finding that the Sy.No.74 is recorded as "SARKARI" as per 1356 Fasli of Pahani and the total extent was recorded as Ac.306.15 gts. The respondent No.5 instead of examining whether the petitioner is entitled for police-aid or not, has recorded findings with regard to the title and ownership of the parties, as if like a Civil Court. The findings recorded by the respondent No.5 in the impugned letter dated 09.12.2022 are not necessary for deciding the application for granting police-aid. Therefore, the impugned letter dated 09.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 09.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.5 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C., before the Civil Court and seek implementation of the order dated 15.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1007 of 2017 in O.S.No.347 of 2017 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, in accordance with law.10
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 20-09-2023 scs