Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Manoj Kumar And Anr. vs Vice-Chairman And Commissioner, A.P. ... on 10 March, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008(3)ALT447
ORDER C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the petitioners' possession of the property bearing municipal No. 10-1-611/51 of West Maredpally, Secunderabad, without notice, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondent not to interfere with their possession of the said property.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners averred that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the abovementioned property admeasuring 700 square yards situated at West Maredpally, having purchased the same under the registered document bearing No. 2202 of 2004. They asserted that the said property is a private property and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, gave "No Objection Certificate" to that effect. They alleged that on 22.01.2007 the officials of the respondent came to the said property and tried to interfere with their possession without prior notice, therefore they filed the present writ petition.
3. The Executive Engineer (Housing), South Division of the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 9, he traced the title of the property as under:
The respondent submits that the petitioners have suppressed the true facts before this Hon'ble Court. The A.P. Housing Board which came into existence in the year 1960 has become the successor body of Town Improvement Trust. Originally, one Sri B.A. Malik, S/o. Mohd. Ali purchased the land admeasuring 4235 square yards from Mr. Kangola Rajaiah by way of registered sale deed dated 19th Azur 1356 Fasli registered in the office of the District Registrar, Atraf Balda in Sy.No.23 situated at Maredpally Taluk North District Atraf Balda. When the said property was required by the Town Improvement Trust, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the year 1356 Fasli and a notification for acquisition of the land was published in the Government Gazette on 27th Asfindar 1356 Fasli for the first time and second time on 30th Sherewar 1356 Fasli and subsequently the said land was acquired for the purpose of Town Improvement Trust and an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for an amount of Rs. 6712/-. The said award was passed on 02.10.1358 Fasli (1949) and subsequently the A.P. Housing Board acquired the said property being the successor of the Town Improvement Trust in the year 1960 and since then the A.P. Housing Board is in possession of the property. The present writ petition property forms part of the acquired land of 4235 square yards. The land acquired by Town Improvement Trust was adjacent to old customs naka and it was clearly mentioned in the plan annexed to the sale deed of Sri B.A. Malik, who purchased the property from K. Rajaiah. Subsequently, town survey was conducted and the corresponding T.S. Nos. 51 and 62 in place of old Sy. No. 23. The Town Survey Register also clearly shows that the A.P. Housing Board is in possession of the property. The petitioners without having any right and title to the property are trying to grab the property by way of filing the false proceedings against the A.P. Housing Board. The property claimed by the petitioners under the alleged sale/release deed do not relate to the petition schedule property. Thus, the identity and location of the property is disputed.
4. He averred in his counter affidavit that the present writ petition was tiled by the petitioners on 23.01.2007 and on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court on the same day, they forcibly opened the door on 24.01.2007 at about 11.25 p.m., by driving away the security personnel and removing the display board of A.P. Housing Board, that on coming to know about the same, the Housing Board gave a police complaint, which was registered as FIR No. 18 of 2007 on 25.01.2007 and that when the petitioners again tried to interfere with the respondent's possession by erecting a hut in the premises, the respondent again gave a complaint on 27.01.2007.
5. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that the petitioners were not in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the writ petition.
6. At the hearing, Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hasan, learned Counsel for the petitioners made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the petitioners are the lawful owners of the property with title having been vested in them and that the respondent without any manner of right whatsoever is seeking to dispossess them without following due process of law.
7. Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that being successor to the Town Improvement Trust for which the property was acquired as far back as the year 1960, the respondent Board is in possession of the property and erected a compound wall around the same. He denied the claim of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of the property.
8. The law is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily does not embark upon the disputed questions of title. A person who claims title is entitled to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit when his title is disputed by a third party and his property rights are sought to be violated, (see State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh and Ors. .)
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in ABL International Limited and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors. and pleaded that even when there is a dispute regarding title, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can go into the same and decide such a dispute in an appropriate case.
10. Having carefully considered the said judgment, I am of the view that in the context of the issues raised in the present writ petition, the said judgment has no application at all. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the said judgment related to a dispute arising under a contract entered into between a company and Government of India Corporation. The said judgment, in my view, is therefore of no help to the petitioners.
11. For the abovementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
12. The petitioners are given liberty to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction to claim appropriate reliefs. To enable them to do so, both parties shall maintain status quo for a period of two months from today. This shall necessarily mean that neither of the parties shall raise any constructions over or change the physical features of the property in dispute.
13. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP. No. 1681 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed.