Writ petition challenging dispossession from property owned via an unregistered sale agreement. High Court held that civil courts are the appropriate forum for title disputes and the petitioner failed to prove possession.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
a f
p I iNh
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4163 OF 2019
Between:
(Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record, as L.Rs to the deceased sole Writ Petitioner as per Order of this Court, Dt.18.07.2023 Vide order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023.)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the . circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 7 in threatening the petitioner to dispossess her from Ac.1.00 of land out of Ac.25.01 cents bounded by (East). Cheruvu Kunta (West)- Land of Bomidala Murali. (North)- Compound Wall of the electrical power station. (South)- Land said to have been purchased by the 7th respondent and situated in S.No.439 of Pedapalakaluru Village. Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District without giving any notice or without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal unauthorized, opposed to the principles of natural justice, provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and Land Acquisition Act and violative of Articles 14. 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 to 7 not to cause obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.00 of land out of Ac.25.01 cents bounded by (East) - Cheruvu Kunta (West) - Land of Bomidala Murali, (North) - Compound Wall of the electrical power station, (South) - Land said to have been purchased by the 7th respondent and situated in S.No.439 of Pedapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District owned and possesed by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 5 and 6 and their men and associates not to dig earth in the subject land of Ac.01.00 cents out of Ac. 25.01 cents bounded by (East): Cheruvukunta, (West):Land of Bommidala Murali (North): Compound wall of the electrical power station and (South): Land purchased by 7th respondent in Sy.no. 439 of pedapalakaluru village pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of Justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M CHALAPATI RAO
Counsel for the Respondents 1, 3 to 5 : OP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : NONE APEPARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.4163 OF 2019
Smt.Thinnaluri Ranganayakamma, W/o late Peda narasayya, Aged about 70 years, R/o D.No.4-10, Peda Palakaluru, Guntur Rural Mandal and District and three others.
Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and six (6) others.
... Respondents
Counsels for the petitioners : Sri M.Chalapathi Rao Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue
GP for Land Acquisition GP for Municipal Administration
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of ^e Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents 3
to 7 in trying to dispossess petitioner from Ac. 1-00 cents out of Ac.25-01 cents in Sy.No.439 of Pedapalakaluru Village, Guntur
Rural Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary.
' ..... /'
Page 2 of 9
SRS, J W.P.No.4163/2019.
SRS, J W.P.No.4163/2019
Z' -Z . A
Page 3 of 9
Pedapalakaluru Village is classified as Tank Poramboke (Ramachandruni Cheruvu). As per FMB, the land was neither converted nor sub-divided. No assignment was granted in favour of any person and there was no encroachment. An extent of Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.439 of Pedapalakaluru Village was handed over to APSPDCL for expansion/for construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station. Neither the petitioner nor any other person is in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of Ac.25-01 cents. There is no need to dispossess the petitioner since the .1« petitioner is not in possession of the property. The subject land is kept in prohibited list under Section 22-A(I)(b) of the Registration Act. The vendor of the petitioner has no title to the property. Mere paying of land revenue does not confer any right over the Government land that too on water bodies and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Page 4 of 9
SRS, J W.P.No.4163/2019
Others in favour of Suryadevara Ramesh in respect of Ac.2-75 cents in Sy.No.439/I of Pedapalakaluru Village of Guntur District, is filed.
r 1 *•
r.^
SRS, J W.P.No.4163/2019
Page 5 of 9
title and possession hence, the writ petition, itself, is not maintainable.
Page 6 of 9
SRS, J W.P.No.4163/2019
in possession of Ac. 1-00 in Sy.No.439, or not, is a disputed question of fact. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India normally shall not adjudicate the issue which requires evidence.
Makani^, 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.
Rajgaria And Others^, Apex Court observed as under;
“A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to properly 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 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.”
‘1992 (1) see 414
/
‘ 1992 (4) see 61
• Zz"
SRS, J W.P.No.4163/2019
****
Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9
SRS, J
W.P.No.4163/2019
are no merits in the writ petition and hence, the writ Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand dismissed.
Sd/- M SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ^SE^Ti^OmCER
//TRUE COPY//
To, 1. OneCCto SRI. M CHALAPATI RAO Advocate [OPUCl 2. TwoCCsto C“ 3. One CC to SRI M MANOHAR REDDY Pradesh.JOUT] 5. Two CD Copies MSR
/
HIGH COURT
DATE0:08/08/2023
Bx, <■- *'
ORDER
WP.No.4163 of 2019
DISMISSING THE WP AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can adjudicate private title disputes regarding possession of property under Article 226.
Whether the petitioner established possession over the land as an encroacher to maintain the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Parvatibai Subhanrao vs. Anwarali Hasanali MakaniReferred¶79
Smt.Parvatibai Subhanrao vs. Anwarali Hasanali Makani
Mohan Pandey And Another vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria And OthersReferred¶81
Mohan Pandey And Another vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria And Others
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Thinnaluri Ranganayakamma (and LRs)
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
