Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sanka Karunakara Dattu, Guntur Dist 2 ... vs The Tenali Municipality, Guntur Dist 4 ... on 5 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.20672 of 2011
Sanka Karunakara Dutt, S/o Veeravenkata
Rama Subramanyam, aged about 60 years,
Occ: Business, R/o H.No.22-7-3, Kothapeta,
Tenali-522 201, Guntur District and two
others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The Tenali Municipality, Rep. by the Municipal
Commissioner, Tenali, Guntur District and
four others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Raja Damoji Rao
Counsel for respondents : Sri M. Manohar Reddy,
standing counsel; GP for
Revenue; GP for
Municipalities and Sri
V.R. Reddy Kovvuri,
standing counsel
:: ORDER ::
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in retaining petitioners' property admeasuring Ac.2-68 cents in T.S.No.2, Ward No.6, Block No.I (old survey Nos.407 and 408) of Tenali Village even after expiry of lease period; proposing to allot certain extent of the land in favour of respondent No.5 and also trying to construct Page 2 of 9 SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011 guest houses, digital library, etc. in certain part of the site as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The averments of the writ affidavit, in brief, are that one late Sanka Punaiah and late Sanka China Venkata Appaiah are the absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.0-82 cents and Ac.1-86 cents in survey Nos.407 and 408, respectively, totaling Ac.2-68 cents in Tenali village. They leased out the subject property to the then Tenali Panchayat, in the year 1888 for a period of 99 years, on a monthly rent of one Anna. In the re-survey and re-settlement conducted in the year, 1906, the subject survey numbers are shown in book No.28/1. The then Tenali Panchayat took the subject land for establishing Panchayat Hospital and the land was taken as per the Board of Revenue Resolution No.1794 dated 17.06.1888. After town survey was introduced, the above lands were assigned T.S.No.2, Ward No.6, Block No.1. After expiry of the lease period, hospital was shifted to own Panchayat's own building, at Chenchupeta, Tenali and the subject land is left vacant. The petitioners made representations to the Government requesting to handover the possession of the property. The then Chief Minister instructed the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Page 3 of 9 SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011 Department, to consider the petitioners' request. In turn, Revenue authorities issued memo No.32160/Assn.V(2)/2008 dated 04.07.2008, directing the District Collector, Guntur, to take necessary action, who, in turn, addressed letter vide L.Dis.No.3620/08/E3, dated 12.09.2008 to the Tahsildar with a direction to take necessary action. When respondent No.5 intended to establish a sub-station, people in the vicinity made representation, and petitioners issued legal notice, dated 31.03.2011. With these averments, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.1. It was contended, inter alia, that town survey was conducted in the year, 1919 and finalized in 1923.
a) As per the Town Survey Register (hereinafter referred to as 'TSR'), D.No.407 and 408 were clubbed at the time of detailed town survey. The subject land is situated in T.S.No.2, Block No.1 and Ward No.6 and T.S.No.13, Block No.1, Ward No.6. As per TSR, old Government Hospital is in an extent of Ac.1-60 cents, T.S.No.2, Block No.1 and the same was classified as Municipal Hospital. Prior to the town survey, also the said land belonged to the Municipality, and Page 4 of 9 SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011 the property was classified as hospital in RSR, TSR and land records of Guntur.
b) As per old RSR of Tenali village, survey No.407 was shown as Government dry and in respect of land of an extent of Ac.0-82 cents in the names of Sanka China Venkatapaiah and Punnaiah are shown as pattadars. Land of an extent Ac.1-86 cents in Survey No.408, was mentioned as Government Poramboke and in the remarks column, it was mentioned as 'Hospital'. Petitioners are claiming an extent of Ac.2-68 cents of land, without any basis. The land is vested with respondent No.1 since 1906. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri T. Raja Damaji Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek, learned counsel representing Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipality.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions, as per averments made in the affidavit. Learned standing counsel reiterated contentions as per averments made in the counter affidavit.
Page 5 of 9
SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011
6. Petitioners, in the writ affidavit asserted that land admeasuring Ac.00-82 cents and Ac.1-86 cents in old survey Nos.407 and 408 respectively i.e. total extent of Ac.2-86 cents, in Tenali Village belongs to their ancestors.
7. In the copies of RSR and TSR filed along with the counter affidavit, survey Nos.408 and 407 are shown as Municipal and Municipal Hospital respectively. Town survey, going by the counter affidavit, was finalized in the year, 1923. In RSR prepared in the year, 1906, the name of Sanka Chinna Venkata Appaiah is mentioned against Ac.00-82 cents.
8. Except RSR, no document is filed to substantiate the contention of the petitioners, that the property was leased out to the then Tenali Panchayat in the year, 1988 for a period of 95 years, for establishing Government Hospital. The plea of the petitioners in para No.2 of the writ affidavit, that due to passage of time, they could not trace out the lease document executed by the then Panchayat, in the opinion of this Court, is only a lame excuse.
9. Exs.P1 to P4, filed along with the writ petition are communications made among the officers qua the Page 6 of 9 SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011 representation made by the petitioners. That communication, prima faice, will not confer title of petitioners over the subject property. Though counter affidavit was filed on 10.08.2011, no rejoinder was filed by the petitioners.
10. Whether the property belonged to the ancestors of the petitioners or not is a serious disputed question of fact, which requires evidence to be let in.
11. It is settled position of law that disputes regarding possession and title of immovable property cannot be effectively resolved in summary proceedings under Article 226 of Indian Constitution, on the basis of affidavit and counter affidavit without tendering witness for cross examination. In Sohan Lal vs. Union of India1, Apex Court observed as under:
"We do not propose to enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title to the property in dispute set up by the appellant and Jagan Nath. If we were to do so, we would be entering into a field of investigation which is more appropriate for a Civil Court in a properly constituted suit to do rather than for a Court exercising by issuing writs. There are questions of fact and law which are in dispute requiring determination before the respective claims of the 1 1957 SCR 738 Page 7 of 9 SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011 parties to this appeal can be decided. Before the property in dispute can be restored to Jagan Nath it will be necessary to declare that he had title in that property ad was entitled to recover possession of it. This would in effect amount to passing a decree in his favour. In the circumstances to be mentioned hereafter, it is a matter for serious consideration whether in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution such declaration ought to be made and restoration of the property to Jagan Nath be ordered....."
12. In Smt. Parvatibai Subhanrao vs. Anwarali Hasanali Makani2, Apex Court held that the Court ordinarily will not determine the title over the immovable property under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In cases relating to immovable properties which are governed by the ordinary civil law, the High Court should not exercise its special jurisdiction under the Constitution unless the circumstances are exceptional.
13. In Mohan Pandey And Another vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria And Others3, Apex Court observed as under;
"A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights and the remedy under it, is not available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general 2 1992 (1) SCC 414 3 1992 (4) SCC 61 Page 8 of 9 SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011 law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly."
14. The case at hand, in the absence of any cogent and undisputed evidence, the relief sought by the petitioner will not be granted in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mere entry in RSR will not confer title. Petitioners, in the opinion of this court, must establish their right and title to the property by placing evidence before the appropriate forum. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 05.12.2023 ikn Page 9 of 9 SRSJ WP No.20672 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.20672 of 2011 Date : 05.12.2023 ikn