Telangana High Court
Vege Chandrika vs The State Of Telangana, on 24 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in/and W.P.No.8635 of 2017
And
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in/and W.P.No.22509 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for 5th respondent, and perused the record.
2. These Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners assailing the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property alleging that the said property is earmarked for park, without showing any relevant documents and also without issuing any notice to the petitioners.
3. On 13-03-2017, this Court while admitting W.P.No.8635 of 2017, passed interim order vide W.P.M.P.No.10701 of 2017 directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and possession of the petitioners of the subject property. 2
4. To vacate the said order, the unofficial respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2023.
5. Similarly, this Court on 07-07-2017, while admitting W.P.No.22509 of 2017, granted interim order vide W.P.M.P.No.27698 of 2017 directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and possession of the petitioners of the subject property.
6. To vacate the said order, the unofficial respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2023.
7. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is filed.
8. By the counter-affidavit filed, the respondents contend that there are no plot Nos.103 & 104 admeasuring 500 sq. yards as claimed by the petitioners in W.P.No.8635 of 2017 and plot Nos.105 & 106 admeasuring 707.77 sq. yards as claimed by the petitioner in W.P.No.22509 of 2017 (for short "plot Nos.103 & 104 and 105 & 106) in Sy.No.105; and that the land in Sy.No.105 to an extent of Ac.8.00 gts belongs to one Smt.Hussain Bee; and that she converted the said land into residential plots by obtaining layout permission from Gram Panchayat, Bahadurpally vide permission dated 27-06-1978.
3
9. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that as per the layout approved by the Gram Panchayat, the entire extent of land of Smt.Hussain Bee was divided into 102 plots and an extent of 1080 sq. yards was earmarked for park by mentioning the boundaries as North : Road, South : Road, West : 12 feet road and East : 30 feet road.
10. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the said park land earmarked in the layout is treated as common amenities for recreation purpose and is being used by the plot owners, who have formed themselves into an Association by name Siddi Vinayaka Nagar Owners Association (5th respondent herein).
11. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that since the subject property is earmarked for park and meant for public purposes, the petitioners herein are trying to grab the park land by mentioning the same as plot Nos.103 & 104 and 105 & 106 without there being any such plots in the said layout.
12. The 5th respondent also filed counter-affidavit.
13. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the land of Smt.Hussain Bee was converted into layout by herself, which showed the existence of only 102 plots and the petitioners in 4 W.P.No.8635 of 2017 have purchased plot Nos.103 & 104 from Mrs.Mariamma, who in turn had purchased the said plot of land from Smt.Hussain Bee under registered sale deed dated 03-11-1978 and the petitioners in W.P.No.22509 of 2017 have purchased plot Nos.105 & 106 by from the legal heirs of Smt.Hussain Bee, without the said plot numbers being in existence, and the petitioners claiming to have purchased the non-existing plots, are trying to encroach on to the land which is earmarked as park and open land.
14. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even as per G.O.Ms.No.131, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department dated 31-08-2020 whereby regularization of plots in unapproved and illegal Layouts was permitted, the layout pattern was required to be maintained, and therefore, even if the layout is an approved layout granted by the Gram Panchayat under the signature of Sarpanch, the petitioners cannot claim the subject plots which are shown as earmarked for park or open area for amenities.
15. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the existence of 1050 sq. yards open space in the layout vide 5 permission that has been obtained by Smt.Hussain Bee is a disputed question of fact and since the petitioners having purchased the said land which are shown as plot Nos.103 & 104 and 105 & 106 from their vendor, who in turn purchased the same from the person who purchased the subject plots under the registered sale deed from Smt.Hussain Bee and her legal heirs, the claim of the unofficial respondent or respondent authorities cannot be accepted.
16. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
17. Admittedly, Smt.Hussain Bee is the owner in respect of land in Sy.No.105, who had converted the aforesaid land into plots by obtaining permission from the erstwhile Gram Panchayat.
18. While, it is the claim of the respondent authorities and unofficial respondent that there exists only 102 plots in the aforesaid survey number and plot bearing Nos.103 & 104 and 105 & 106 as claimed by the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions did not exist, the petitioners, on the other hand claims that the petitioners' vendor's vendor by name Mrs.Mariyamma in W.P.No.8635 of 2017 purchased said property under registered document dated 03-11-1978 from Smt.Hussain Bee, which coincides with her obtaining layout permission from the erstwhile 6 Gram Panchayat and as such, it is not open for the respondents now to call in question the title of petitioners' vendor's vendor.
19. Though, the petitioners are claiming title to the subject under registered sale deed, since it is contended by the respondents that the layout permission granted by the erstwhile Gram Panchayat had provided for only 102 plots, and plot Nos.103 & 104 and 105 and 106 being claimed by the petitioners on ground forms part of area which is earmarked for park and open spaces for amenities, the same would be a disputed question of fact, as rightly contended by the petitioners themselves and cannot be gone into by this Court under Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is summary jurisdiction. If that be so, the petitioners could not have approached this Court in the first instance in 2017 and obtained an interim order against the respondents by claiming that the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the subject land. On the other hand, the petitioners ought to have approached the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction by invoking civil law to establish their title to the subject property under sale deeds. Instead of undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the petitioners, by the present Writ Petitions have sought for determination of title disputes. It is settled position of law that a Court in exercise of powers conferred 7 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate title disputes (See Subhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others 1 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Ehas and others 2).
20. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petitions as filed are misconceived.
21. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Court of Civil jurisdiction for initiating proceedings in accordance with law.
22. Subject to above observation and liberty, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.
23. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8635 and 2017 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.22509 of 2017 are closed.
24. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 24.07.2024 Vsv 1 2021 SCC Online SC 562 2 MANU/SC/1137/2023