Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nandigam Vijaya Lakshmi vs The State Of Ap on 4 November, 2020
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.15918 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporations, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.9.
2. This is a dispute between two siblings, which has a long and chequered history. Original Suit viz., O.S.No.48 of 2013 was filed before II Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. The present petitioner is the plaintiff therein. Respondent No.9 is defendant No.2 in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, which is the site admeasuring 487.50 sq. yds. After protracted trial, the plaintiff succeeded in the suit and a declaration was granted that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property. Against the same, an appeal viz., A.S.No.1681 of 2018 has been filed and the same is pending on the file of this High Court.
3. At this stage, because of continuation of the disputes, the petitioner has given a representation, dated 15.05.2020, making certain serious allegations against the activity being carried out by respondent No.9. It is specifically alleged that the statutory authorities, viz., the official respondents are not taking any action, whatsoever, against the unofficial respondent viz., respondent No.9, who is illegally constructing in the plot, illegally digging the bore-well, illegally securing water tap connection and also committed theft of electricity power. Apart from that, it is alleged that the construction is being carried out in the site admeasuring 487.50 sq. yds.
2 DVSS,J W.P.No.15918 of 2020
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues in the line what has been stated in the writ petition and states that the inaction of the official respondents may be checked and a positive direction may be given because the construction is going on in the site admeasuring 487.50 sq. yds. It is her fervent contention that the unofficial respondent viz., respondent No.9 is raising pillars, without permission constructing rooms and blocking the way into the site. Therefore, she argues that this is a fit case, where a direction may be given to the statutory authorities to dispose of the petitioner's representation as per law.
5. Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 states that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. According to him, there are disputed facts, which cannot be gone into neither by the official respondents nor by this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relies upon the decision of this Court in Guntuka Raja Ram vs. State of Telangana1 to support his contentions.
6. Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9, also states that the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court. He relies on his counter-affidavit and states that the construction is not being carried out in the site admeasuring 487.50 sq. yds. It is specifically stated that the construction is being carried out in the adjacent site admeasuring 130 sq.yds. He also points out that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy as the appeal is pending. He also submits that there are issues raised, which require lot of local investigation etc.,. According to him, neither Municipal Corporation nor the other official respondents have the competence to decide these issues.
12017(4) ALD 415 3 DVSS,J W.P.No.15918 of 2020
7. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, notices that the appeal is still pending. The fundamental issue that is being raised is about the construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking a relief against the construction said to have been made by the unofficial respondent viz., respondent No.9 in the site admeasuring 487.50 sq. yds. The prayer in the writ petition is for disposal of the representation pertaining to the alleged illegal activities being carried out in the site admeasuring 487.50 sq. yds. This is vehemently denied by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent viz., respondent No.9. He very clearly argues that the construction is being carried out in the site admeasuring 130 sq.yds. This is a very seriously disputed question of fact. Neither this writ Court nor the official respondents can enter into this area of controversy and give the direction in the nature sought for. The petitioner has adequate remedies available for redressal, in case the alleged activities are per se illegal as stated by her. Even the respondents in appeal are not prevented from seeking appropriate order in the civil Court as per the settled case law.
8. In the above view of the matter, both on the questions of fact and on law, this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue her remedies in an appropriate forum.
9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_____________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J 04th November, 2020 GHN 4 DVSS,J W.P.No.15918 of 2020 46 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.15918 of 2020 04.11.2020 GHN 5 DVSS,J W.P.No.15918 of 2020