Telangana High Court
Sri Allu Ashok Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 6 September, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.20991 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri B. Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and with the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of plot bearing No.70 (part) admeasuring 200 square yards forming part of unapproved layout in Sy. Nos.104, 106 to 108, 181 to 186, 188 and 189 situated at Nizampet village and Gram panchayat, Quthbullapur Mandal having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2013 from its previous vendor.
3. Petitioner further contends that he had got the plot regularized on 05.03.2013 from the HMDA authorities; and that the 2nd respondent is highhandedly constructing the compound wall in the petitioner's property without any authority and also 2 without following due process of law, which action it is contended is highly illegal and arbitrary.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the construction of compound wall by the 2nd respondent Municipality is taken up in respect of land in Sy. No.105 which is a Government land and, as such, the claim of the petitioner of the subject property forming part of an unapproved layout in respect of which he had obtained regularization cannot be held to be valid.
5. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
6. While the petitioner claims that the subject plot purchased by him admeasuring 200 square yards forming part of Sy. Nos.104, 106 to 109 and 181 to 186, 188 and 189 of Nizampet village, the respondents are claiming the subject land as forming part of Sy. No.105 which is recorded as Government land.
7. Since, the said fact being a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same is required to be localized and demarcated by collection of evidence.
3
8. For the said reason, this Court is of the view that while the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner should be directed to avail the civil remedies open to him in law.
9. Granting liberty as sought, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 06.09.2024 MRKR