Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kodavalli Veeraiah vs The Gram Panchayat Of Angirekulapadu, ... on 4 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(1)ALT280
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. This petition is for a writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents have no right to carve out or lay road in an extent of 0.25 cents of land situated in S.No. 55/1 of Anneboyinapalle Revenue village, Prakasam district, without adverting to land acquisition proceedings.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased 0.25 cents of land situated in the north-west corner of S.No. 55/1 out of the total extent of Ac.4-48 cents from the Bezwada Kondaiah under an agreement of sale about 25 years ago and eversince he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The remaining land in S.No. 55/1 is owned by Bezwada Kondaiah and the land situated to the north of S.No. 55/1 belongs to one Allam Malakondaiah. It is stated that the land situated to the north of the land Allam Malakondaiah belonged to one Allam Anjaiah, who is the President of the village. The said land measuring Ac.1-00 has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of house-sites to weaker sections and about 20 houses have sprung up in that land. Those 20 houses were occupied about six months back and they are connected with the bazar in the village, situated towards west directly. The site of the petitioner, it is stated, is also connected with the bazar in the village directly through a passage. It is stated that due to political rivalry, the Sarpanch is instigating some of the occupants of the houses constructed under weaker section housing scheme, to encroach upon the land of the petitioner. This, the petitioner contends, is a gross abuse of power, which the Sarpanch is exercising and the encroachment is unwarranted. When the petitioner has tried to prevent the encroachers from entering into the land, for some reason the people, whose houses have come up recently under the weaker section housing programme, made a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer and other Government officials through the local M.L. A., who is opposed to the petitioner. It is further stated that the Sarpanch, with the help of the local M.L.A., tried to forcibly encroach upon the site and lay road connecting the weaker section housing colony. The petitioner had taken recourse to have fencing around his site in order to protect his land from the encroachers. But, it is stated, respondents 2 to 5, in collusion with the police, came and high-handedly removed the fencing of the site on the north-west corner. Thus, it is stated, there is an encroachment deliberately committed by respondents 2 to 5 in order to deprive the petitioner of his land.
3. On behalf of the official respondents, no counter has been filed.
4. However, WPMP No. 502/93 was filed by respondents 6 to 71 seeking themselves to be impleaded to the writ petition and this Court by order dated 22-1-1993 ordered the said miscellaneous petition. Respondents 6 to 71 filed a counter inter alia contending that they have been using the site as a pathway; that they have easementary right over this site and that, therefore, the petitioner cannot prevent these respondents from using the pathway through the land of the petitioner.
5. Sri Peddababu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondents have no manner of right whatsoever to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner; the weaker section housing colony where 20 houses have come up has been a recent development; the people of that colony have another access to the main road and, therefore, they need not use the land of the petitioner. It is also contended that because of political rivalry, the official respondents have been influenced and they tried to forcibly remove trie fencing, which action is condemnable and the official respondents are to be prevented from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land. Sri Peddababu further submits that if the land is required by the Government for any public purpose, it is open to the official respondents to acquire the same by initiating land acquisition proceedings.
6. Sri M.V. Ramana Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, on the other hand, contends that respondents 6 to 71 have been using the land in question for the past more than 30 years as a pathway to their houses and, therefore, their easementary right cannot be infringed at this point of time.
7.This is a case where atempts have been made to deprive a citizen of his own property by dint of force. When it is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of 0.25 cents of land in S.No. 55/1, under the background that only 20 houses have been constructed in the weaker section housing colony, which have sprung up recently, I am afraid, I cannot accept the contention advanced by Sri Ramana Reddy that respondents 6 to 71 have been using the petitioner's land as a pathway to reach their houses for more man 30 years and, therefore, they have acquired exclusive easementary right. Sri Ramana Reddy further contends that it is open to the petitioner to approach the civil court and get a declaration in his favour and that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot lie in the High Court. It is also contended, under the guise of interim direction granted by this Court, the petitioner has blocked the way; thereby respondents 6 to 71 are put to lot of inconvenience.
8. The reasoning could be otherwise. If respondents 6 to 71 claim that they have acquired easementary right over the property belonging to the petitioner on the ground that they have been using it as a pathway for more than 30 years, it is open to them to approach a competent civil court and get their rights declared. When a citizen comes to the court inter alia contending that his rights are being infringed, I am of the view, under Article 2.26 of the Constitution of India, this Court could, in given circumstances, come to the rescue of that citizen. It is not as though an alternative remedy is available and the party is prevented from approaching this court. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of a case. If the court is satisfied, by driving a party to other forum on the premise that remedy is available elsewhere, the party which approaches this court might suffer irreparable loss, High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can come to the aid of such party. The changing needs of society, in parity with time, law cannot remain static and, therefore, has to be flexible and cater to the needs of the changing circumstances. The latest trend seems to be the requirement of instant justice. Therefore, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can, in given circumstances, come to the rescue of a citizen and prevent such authority from interfering with the rights of that citizen. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention that the petitioner could move the civil court and obtain orders in his favour. On the contrary, in my view, it is for respondents 6 to 71, who claim easementary right, to approach the civil court, if they so desire. The allegation of the petitioner is that the official respondents have been interfering with his peaceful possession over the land in question under the political influence. Though, to refute such allegation, no counter has been filed, I would only say that the respondents cannot interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question and dispossess him, unless in accordance with law.
9. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property over an extent of 0.25 cents out of S.No. 55/1 of Anneboyinapalle Revenue village, Prakasam district, which belongs to the petitioner, otherwise than in accordance with law.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.