Telangana High Court
M/S Bhagwan Sri Balsaibaba Central ... vs The State Of Telangana on 6 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
I.A.Nos.2 of 2023 & 1, 2 and 3 of 2024
IN/AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.13477 and 22539 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao) In the above two writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners filed Memos on behalf of the petitioners on 16.07.2024 vide U.S.R.Nos.65698 of 2024 and 65704 of 2024 respectively, seeking permission for withdrawal of the above two writ petitions. Along with the said memos, learned counsel enclosed the copies of the letter dated 12.07.2024 addressed by the Managing Trustee and Trustee of the writ petitioner and sworn affidavit of petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.22539 of 2023.
2. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13477 and 22539 of 2023, Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in both the writ petitions, Sri Vasireddy ::2::
Prabhunath, learned counsel for the implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.13477 of 2023, Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Macherla Santosh, learned counsel for the implead petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.13477 of 2023 through video conferencing, Sri M. Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2024, Sri Velagapudi Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for Ms.Nibanupudi Lakshmi Aiswarya, learned counsel for the implead petitioners in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in W.P.No.13477 of 2023, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5982 of 2010, Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (P.I.L) No.38 of 2024.
3. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the implead petitioners objected for withdrawal of the same. In order to proceed with the above said memos, this Court recorded the facts of the case in the writ petitions.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. Facts giving rise to filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are that the land admeasuring Ac.88.39 gts. in ::3::
Sy.Nos.104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District fell to the share of the legal heirs of late Vege Seetha Ramaiah i.e., Vege Veeraiah, Vege Bhaskar Rao, Vege Nagabushanam, Vege Pothuraju, Vega Balamma, Vege Sitha Ramaiah, Vege Sarojini, Vege Setyanarayana, Vege Ragavaiah Chowdary, Vege Suresh and Thatineni Bhanumathi, through judgment and decree dated 24.12.1969 in O.S.No.62 of 1963 on the file of the Munisiff Magistrate Court, Hyderabad West. Out of the said extent of land, the legal heirs of Vege Seetha Ramaiah have sold an extent of Ac.85.32 gts. in Sy.Nos.104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 for valid consideration in favour of the petitioner Trust i.e. Bhagavan Sri Bala Sai Baba Central Trust through 61 registered sale deeds.
After purchase of the above said lands, the petitioner Trust came to know that the said land is hit by the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Trust in dire need of funds, registered Six agreements of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney dated 24.02.2000 to 26.02.2000 in favour of respondent No.5 to an extent of Ac.43.00 gts of land in Sy.Nos.105, 106, 107 and 108. The petitioner Trust and respondent No.5 together entered into an agreement of sale dated ::4::
14.02.2002 with one Mr.M. Prabhakar Rao for land admeasuring Ac.50.00 gts. The same was then enhanced to Ac.70.00 gts. of land in Sy.Nos.104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 through a memorandum of understanding dated 31.08.2005. 4.2. On 16.08.2005, the competent authority under the Act issued proceedings in C.C.No.H2/10699, 10695 to 10697, 10699 and 10700 of 1976, wherein it is stated that the total land held by late Vege Seetha Ramaiah is said to be Ac.85.32 gts., which is equivalent to 347215.44 sq. meters.
4.3. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 to regularize and enable allotment of surplus land to the third parties, who are in occupation and possession of the same, through a registered document of purchase. Pursuant to the above said G.O, petitioner Trust filed application for regularization of the land in its own name. Accordingly, respondent No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No.2065 dated 29.11.2005 regularizing Ac.42.03 gts. of surplus land in favour of the petitioner Trust. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued Memo No.12629/ULC II3/2008 dated 05.05.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023 amending/reviewing G.O.Ms.No.2065 dated ::5::
29.11.2005 substituting the words 'M/s.Bhupathi Associates' in the place of 'Bhagavan Sri Bala Sai Baba Central Trust'.
Questioning the above said Memo dated 05.05.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2003, the petitioner Trust filed W.P.No.13477 of 2023. Thereafter petitioner Trust filed another W.P.No.22539 of 2023 questioning the action of the respondent authorities making revenue entries in favour of respondent No.5.
5. Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioners :
5.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the instructions issued by the writ petitioners, Memo dated 16.07.2024 has been filed seeking permission to withdraw the writ petitions. It is contended that the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C are applicable to writ proceeding and the petitioners are entitled to seek withdrawal of the writ petitions.
5.2. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State ::6::
Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, and others 1; and Anil Kumar Singh v. Vijay Pal Singh and others 2.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.5:
Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that he has no objection to withdrawal of the writ petitions. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaik Hussain and sons v. M.G.Kannaiah another 3.
7. Submissions of learned counsel for the implead petitioners:
7.1. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior counsel, pointed out that in respect of the very same subject property, several writ petitions are pending. It is submitted that if the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the writ petitions, the same will affect the rights of the parties in other writ petitions. He further submitted that the petitioners obtained the orders from the State Government by playing fraud. However, he submitted that the impugned Memo No.12629/ULC.II (3)/2008 dated 05.05.2023 1 (1987) 1 SCC 5 2 (2018) 12 SCC 584 3 (1981) 3 SCC 71 ::7::
and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023 were challenged by proposed respondents in other writ petitions. 7.2. Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel, contended that petitioner No.1 is a Trust and the rights in respect of subject property in favour of third party have been created during subsistence of order of status-quo, with an intention to defeat the rights of the parties in other writ petitions and the same is clear abuse of process of law. It is submitted that in the public law remedy, the petitioners are not entitled to seek withdrawal of the writ petitioners. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup and others 4, and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D)/LRs and another v. B.D. Agarwal and others 5.
7.3. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the petitioner is a registered Trust and the petitioner Trust questioned the impugned G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023 issued in favour of respondent No.5 and the petitioner Trust is not entitled to seek withdrawal of the writ petitions against the interest of the beneficiaries.4
(2009) 6 SCC 194 5 (2003) 6 SCC 230 ::8::
7.4. Sri Vasireddy Prabhunath, learned counsel, submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner Trust are not maintainable under law. He further submitted that without consent of the beneficiaries of the Trust, the petitioner Trust cannot seek withdrawal of the writ petitions. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Madolal Sindhu and others 6 and Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University v. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust and others 7. 7.5. Sri Velagapudi Srinivas, learned Counsel, submitted that the Trust is registered under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The petitioner Trust cannot seek withdrawal of the writ petitions without permission of the members of the Trust. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 23(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Government granted exemption in favour of the petitioner Trust and the same cannot be transferred to any other person. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 6 AIR 1950 Bombay 378 7 AIR 1995 Madras 42 ::9::
R.Venugopala Naidu and others v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and others 8.
8. Reply submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel, by way of reply submitted that the petitioners have not taken any benefits subsequent to granting of interim order i.e., status quo order dated 28.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.13477 of 2023 and there are no complaints from the beneficiaries of the Trust. Analysis:
9. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner Trust filed W.P.No.13477 of 2023 questioning the Memo No.12629/ULC.II (3)/2008 dated 05.05.2023 and consequential G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1 amending G.O.Ms.No.2065 dated 29.11.2005 substituting the words 'M/s.Bhupathi Associates' in the place of 'Bhagavan Sri Bala Sai Baba Central Trust' in respect of the land to an extent of 8 1989 Supp (2) SCC 356 ::10::
Ac.42.03 gts. in Sy.Nos.105, 106, 107 and 108. The petitioner Trust and the Managing Trustee filed another W.P.No.22538 of 2023 questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in mutating the name of respondent No.5 in the Record of Rights in Dharani Portal in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.8.2800 covered by Sy.No.105/2, Ac.12.3400 in Sy.No.106/A/2, Ac.13.100 in Sy.No.107/A/2, Ac.1.2500 in Sy.No.108/A and Ac.5.2600 in Sy.No.108/2 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13477 of 2023 and W.P.No.22539/2023 filed two Memos on 16.07.2024, wherein it is stated that:
"It is submitted that on the instructions of the writ petitioner, the counsel for the Petitioner has earlier filed letters before this Hon'ble Court seeking withdrawal of the writ petitions in W.P. No.13477 of 2023 and W.P. No. 22539 of 2023. Now, as an abundant caution, the affidavits of the trustees of the writ petitioner herein and a letter are filed along with this memo seeking withdrawal of the writ petitions in W.P. No. 13477 of 2023 and W.P. No. 22539 of 2023."
::11::
11. The relevant extract of Order XXIII Rule 1 and 3 of C.P.C., reads as follows:
Rule1.Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim:
Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court. Rule 3. Where the Court is satisfied,-- (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of suit or part of a claim, It may, on such terms as it thinks fit grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim.
12. Thus, the above said provision clearly reveals that the plaintiff at any point of time after institution of the suit is entitled to seek withdrawal of the suit or abandonment of part of claim against all the defendants or any of the defendants. In Sarguja Transport Service (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that the provision of ::12::
Order XXIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Similar view has been taken in R.Rathinavel Chettiar v. V.Sivaraman 9 and K.S.Bhoopathy v. Kokila 10.
13. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed memos dated 16.07.2024 for seeking withdrawal of the writ petitions unconditionally and respondent No.5, who is the contesting party, submitted that it has no objection for withdrawal of the writ petitions. The petitioners in I.A.No.2/2023, I.A.No.1/2024, I.A.No.2/2024, and I.A.No.4/2024 and counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No5982 of 2010 and W.P (P.I.L.) No.38 of 2024, who have objected to withdrawal of the writ petitions, admittedly, are not parties in the two writ petitions i.e. WP.No.13477/2023 and W.P.No.22539/2023.
14. As per the provisions of Order XXIII of C.P.C., the respondents/defendants are entitled to oppose such withdrawal. Admittedly, respondent No.5 is not having 9 (1999) 4 SCC 89 10 (2000) 5 SCC 458 ::13::
objection for withdrawal of the writ petition. The persons, who are not parties in these writ petitions, have made an objection for withdrawal of the writ petitions on the ground that if the writ petitions are withdrawn, the same will affect the adjudication of other writ petitions, is not tenable under law, on the ground that questioning the very same impunged Memo dated 05.05.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1, the petitioners in I.A.Nos.2 of 2023, 1 of 2024, 2 of 2024 and 3 of 2024 have already filed independent writ petitions, wherein the petitioner Trust as well as respondent No.5 are party respondents and the said writ petitions are pending. By virtue of withdrawal of the subject writ petitions, no prejudice would be caused to the parties in other writ petitions on the ground that they have already questioned the very same impugned proceedings and the same would have to be adjudicated on merits.
15. It is also pertinent to mention that this Court is not adjudicating the rights over the subject property and validity ::14::
of the impugned Memo dated 05.05.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 06.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1. No beneficiary of the trust or the trustees has come forward to oppose withdrawal of the writ petitions.
16. It is pertinent to mention that the persons, who are not parties to the writ petitions are not entitled to object for withdrawal of the writ petitions nor this Court can direct the petitioners to proceed with the matter on merits when they want to withdraw the writ petitions unconditionally. Though learned counsel for the implead petitioners raised several contentions by entering into merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspects on the sole ground that the petitioners are seeking permission for withdrawal of the writ petitions unconditionally. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to seek withdrawal of the writ petitions.
17. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. It is needless to observe that this order of ::15::
withdrawal will not prejudice to the rights of any of the parties in any other pending proceedings in respect of the subject property and the said cases will be decided on merits.
18. By virtue of dismissal of writ petitions, I.A.Nos.2 of 2023, 1 of 2024, 2 of 2024 and 3 of 2024 are dismissed. However, the petitioners in the above said interlocutory applications are granted liberty to raise all grounds which are available under law in the pending writ petitions.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 06.12.2024 mar