Telangana High Court
Amaragonda Mallesh Adilabad Dist vs Dist Collector Adilabad Dist And 2 Ot on 21 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WP .NO: 14259 of 2013
Between:
Amaragonda Mallesh, S/o Ilaiah
..... Petitioner
AND
1. The District Collector, Adilabad District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District.
3. The Tahasildar, Kaddam Mandal, Adilabad District.
.....Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 14-04-2013 in Proc.No.
D/4789/2011 passed by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded,
without jurisdiction, vitiated by error apparent on the face of record, in
violation of principles of natural justice, in derogation of mandatory provision
of law and void being in contravention of Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India and consequently set-aside the same.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the
affidavit filed herein and the order of the High Court dated 8-5-2013 made
herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Kumar, Advocate for the
Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana
Area) for the Respondents, the Court made the following
ORDER:
The impugned order notes that the subject plot, which the petitioner claims to have been assigned to him, belongs to the Irrigation Department; the assignment could not have been made for only one plot, that too of land which belonged to the Irrigation Department; the patta certificate was also not clear; the extent of land was not mentioned therein; their enquiry revealed that the petitioner was already given another house patta in Kaddam Peddur; he had illegally occupied 40 acres of shikam land; the District Collector had requested the Tahsildar to take recovery action for removal of illegal occupation of shikam land and for cancellation of the house site patta issued to the petitioner in Keddam Peddur; and, therefore, he was ordering cancellation of the patta assigned to the petitioner in Survey No.33 and Plot No.2 of Kaddam.
This Court, while granting interim stay for a period of eight weeks observed that, prima facie, the impugned proceedings were without notice to the petitioner.
Today, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) states that, in addition to what has been stated in the impugned order, an "Indiramma Scheme" house was allotted in petitioner's wife's name in Dharmaipeta village; an extent of Ac.4.02 acres had already been assigned in her name; the petitioner had illegally occupied 40 acres of land, which lies near to the back waters of Kaddam project; and he had illegally encroached on government lands.
Though Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, across the bar, that the assertions, in the impugned order, of the petitioner having illegally occupied 40 acres of shikam land, is false; the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is silent as to whether or not the petitioner was given a house plot at Kaddam Peddur and whether he had illegally occupied 40 acres of shikam land.
Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel, seeks two weeks time to file an additional affidavit denying these allegations, and requests that the interim order passed earlier be extended till then.
Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, and a Writ is not issued as of right or as a matter of course. (C.R. Reddy Law College Employees' Association, Eluru W.G. District vs. Bar Council of India, New Delhi1). The discretionary power of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not be exercised in every case where there is an error of law. One of the limitations imposed by this Court, on itself, is that it would not exercise jurisdiction unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah2). One of the principles inherent is that exercise of discretionary power should be for the sake of justice and, if granting relief results in greater harm to the society, the Court may refrain from exercising the power. (State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu3). This Court exercises its discretionary power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest, and not merely on the making out of a legal point. This Court is required to keep larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, would it intervene in the matter. (Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Pvt Ltd4; Air India Ltd v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.5) The petitioner is granted two weeks time to file an additional affidavit regarding the 40 acres of shikam land, (which he had allegedly encroached upon); and the house plot allotted to him at Kaddam Peddur.
_____________________ [1] 2004(5) ALD 180 (DB) 2 AIR 1955 SC 425 3 (1994) 2 SCC 481 4 (2005) 6 SCC 138 5 (2000) 2 SCC 617 As this Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only in larger public interest, and as substantial injustice would not result if it refrains from interference, I see no reason to extend the interim order as serious allegations are made of the petitioner having illegally occupied 40 acres of government Shikam land. The petitioner's apprehension of being dispossessed from the subject plot can always be redressed later, in case the impugned order necessitates being set aside.
Post the Writ Petition, for admission, on 22.07.2013.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The District Collector, Adilabad District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 3 The Tahasildar, Kaddam Mandal, Adilabad District. 4 One CC to Sri C. Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 5 Two CCs to the G.P. for Revenue (Telangana Area), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 6 One spare copy.
nnr HIGH COURT RR,J DATED: 8-7-2013 NOTE: Post for admission on 22-7-2013 ORDER W.P.NO. 14259 OF 2013 DIRECTION HIGH COURT Nnr Date of Drafting : 10-7-2013 RR,J DATED: 8-7-2013 NOTE: Post for admission on 22-7-2013 ORDER W.P.NO. 14259 OF 2013 DIRECTION