Dismissed

Smt. Kandregula Sanyasamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jul 2021WP/7761/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging interference with property possession and seeking mandamus against railway authorities was dismissed. The Court held that questions of title and encroachment are questions of fact for the competent civil court, hence it declined to intervene at this stage.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the petitioner is relegated to approach the competent Civil Court.

Smt. Kandregula Sanyasamma, Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.7761 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property in an extent of Ac.0.96½ cents situated in Sy.No.411/4B, 411/3B and 411/2B of Narva Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without having any right and title and erecting of survey poles which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(e) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above mentioned property and pass such other order or orders....”

¶7

The petitioner submits that initially Peela Gopanna, Peela Venkayamma and Alla Mallayya are the owners of the property. Later one Yelisetty Seethayya acquired the property through three registered sale deeds vide document Nos.430/1966, 431/1996 and 433/1966 and thereafter, husband of Smt.Kandregula Sanyasamma by name Kandregula Ramu Naidu and two others purchased the present property under registered sale deed dated 14.02.1969 from Yelisetty Seethayya of an extent of Ac.1.42½ cents which is shown as item No.4 in the document.

¶8

After demise of the petitioner’s husband, she applied for mutating her name in the revenue records and at the time of mutation, the 7^th respondent after conducting inspection and after conducting survey, recommended her name for mutation in the revenue records.

¶9

After receiving the above said documents from the Revenue Officials, the petitioner entered into development agreement with her construction company to develop the property in an extent of

¶10

¶11

Ac.0.96½ cents or 4760 Sq.Yds consisting of 42 individual plots by constructing individual houses entered into development agreement vide Registered Document No.1632/2018 with the Power of Attorney dated 12.02.2019 vide Doc.No.655/2019. As per the Development Agreement, the Developer obtained plan approvals from the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in respect of Plot nos.24 to 42 for each plot for constriction of individual RCC buildings, after verifying the site on ground by the Town Surveyor, after collecting the required fee and after verifying the documents, the GVMC approved the plans submitted by the petitioner on 24.08.2019. But the 4^th respondent is claiming to be owner of the property in an extent of Ac.3.68 cents in Sy.Nos.411/4B, 411/3B and 411/2B of Narva Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District not permitting this petitioner to complete the development activities of the land in Sy.Nos.411/4B, 411/3B and 411/2B, though the plan is approved by the authorities concerned and that the 4^th respondent has no right to interfere with the land in Sy.Nos.411/4B, 411/3B and 411/2B of Narva Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and therefore the petitioner requested to issue a direction to the 4^th respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

¶12

Counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.4 denying material allegations while contending that the petitioner is the owner of the land shown in the list of property and the proceedings passed by East Coast Railways in DRM/Engg/Genl/RTI/5113, dated 06.02.2021 and specifically claimed right in the land in an extent of Ac.3.68 cents in Sy.

¶13

¶14

411/4B, 411/3B and 411/2B and not claiming any right in Sy.Nos.411/2B and 3B of Narava Village. However, contended that the petitioner herein encroached Sy.No.411/1 and the Survey was conducted and found that the petitioner is encroached the land, based on such contention the respondents requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶15

There is no dispute with regard to the location of land in Sy.Nos.411/1, 411/2A, 411/3A and 411/4A and 411/5A adjacent to each other. But the contention of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent is interfering with the possession and enjoyment not permitting the petitioner to complete the process for development activities after obtaining permission from the Municipality. But, whereas the 4^th respondent contended that their land is encroached by the petitioner. Thus, there is a prior dispute as to the encroachment which is a question of fact and it cannot be decided by this Court, in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sanjana M.Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation”¹ while answering the principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether discretionary jurisdiction would be refused to be exercised solely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy which is more efficacious. Ordinarily, when a dispute between the parties requires adjudication of disputed question of facts wherefore the parties required to lead evidence both oral and documentary which can be determined by a domestic forum chosen by the parties, the Court may not entertain a writ application.

¶16

1 (2005) 8 SCC 242

¶17

¶18

Therefore, such disputed questions can be decided by a Competent Civil Court and not by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I am not inclined to grant any relief in the petition relegating the petitioner or respondent to approach the competent Civil Court to redress their grievance, in accordance with law.

¶19

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶21

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶22

Date: 23.07.2021 VSL

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.7761 OF 2021

¶26

Date: 23.07.2021 VSL

Smt. Kandregula Sanyasamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kandregula Sanyasamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yerragudi Chinna Venkata Subbamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Anwar Hussain, Kurnool Dist and Another Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 4 Ot

D. Narsimhulu, Kurnool Dist., and Anr. Vs the State of a.P.,Stamps,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Golla Manjula Vs State of Ap

Smt. Valluru Geetha Mounika, Vs the State of Ap

Reddy Venkata Krishna, W.G. Dist Vs Prl Secy, Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Dept, Hyd and 2 Ot