S Siddi Naik Vs the State of Ap

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 interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property, an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.879-E of Kanik (la Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, without following th le due process of law, is illegal, improper and violation of principles o f natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 7 not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property and not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.879-E of Kanikela Village and Mandal Ananthapuramu District, without following the due process of law, and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

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 interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property and not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.879-E of Kanikela Village ar mandal, Ananthapuramu District, without following the due process of law, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶26

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 pleased to vacate interim order dated 12.05.2023 in W.P.No.2032 of 2023 and also dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶28

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 pleased to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.No.2032 of 2023 date. 1205-.2023 and pass

¶29

3

¶30

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶31

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 pleased to grant Leave to the Petitioner to file the Reply Affidavit in W.P.No.2032 of 2023 and pass.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.HARINADH NIDAMANURI

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶36

2.GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

¶37

3..

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

4

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2032 OF 2023

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶43

India seeking the following relief:

¶44

“… 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 interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property, an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.879-E of Kanikala Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, without following the due process of law, is illegal, improper and violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 7 not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property and not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.879E of Kanikala Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, without following the due process of law, and pass such other order or orders…”

¶45

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent authorities are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner‟s property admeasuring Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.879-E of Kanikala Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, without following due procedure of law.

¶46

It is narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that one Venkata Reddy, S/o.Ramamohan Reddy, is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.2.44 cents in Sy.No.879-E of Kanikala Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. On 11.06.1979, when the petitioner was a minor, petitioner‟s mother purchased an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.879-E of

¶47

5

¶48

Kanikala Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, from one Venkata Reddy through registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1033/1979. Since then, the petitioner‟s mother, and after her death, the petitioner, have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till date. Subsequently, the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.0.65 cents by executing registered sale deed and delivered possession to the purchasers. Now, the petitioner is having only Ac.0.10 cents. While so, in the month of March 2022, respondent Nos.6 and 7 illegally entered into petitioner‟s land without having any right and title over the property. Petitioner issued legal notice dated 10.03.2022, through his counsel, requesting them not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property. Despite receipt of the said legal notice, respondent Nos.6 and 7, in collusion with respondent Nos.3 to 5, have been attempting to trespass into the petitioner‟s land. Hence, present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner‟s property.

¶49

Respondent Nos.4 and 7 have filed their respective counter-affidavits. In both the counter-affidavits, it is stated that the father of the petitioner i.e., Shaik Chinna Amid Saheb, had donated land to the Medical and Health Department. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has constructed 22-bed hospital building in the said land and it was inaugurated on 10.08.1998 and the petitioner‟s father name was inscribed/engraved on a commemorative plaque. It is alleged that the petitioner, by circumventing the law, has filed the present writ petition.

¶50

6

¶51

Learned counsel for petitioner filed reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit stating that petitioner‟s father died on 04.12.1992, donating the land subsequently does not arise, as pleaded by the respondents.

¶52

Heard Sri N.Harinadh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Medical, Health & Family Welfare for respondents.

¶53

It is the case of the petitioner that his father died in the year 1992 and he cannot donate the land after his death and he has no right to donate the land, as the land was purchased by his mother. Admittedly, the name of petitioner‟s father name was inscribed/engraved on a commemorative plaque. It is the property gifted to the respondents and the said inscription is a document under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter for short „the Act‟). The document of dedication is in the form of stone inscription installed in the front of the hospital, which is now under the occupation of the respondents. According to the respondents, the commencing or inauguration of the hospital is of the year 1998 (not the foundation) and that would demonstrate the dedication of the property to the hospital.

¶54

As per Section 3 of the Act, interpretation clause, the term evidence is described as follows:-

¶55

“Evidence means and includes: (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced

¶56

7

¶57

for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.”

¶58

This speaks of all statements required by law, to be made before the

¶59

Court or all the documents including the electronic one, for the inspection of the Court are called oral and documentary evidence. It, nowhere, speaks of proving or disproving the document or the statements at the stage of leading

¶60

evidence meaning, thereby the evidentiary value of a document can be assessed at a later stage.

¶61

The term document is described as follows under Section 3 of the Act:

¶62

“Document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.

¶63

Illustrations: A writing is a document;

¶64

Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document;

¶65

An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document.”

¶66

From the above definition clause, it is understood that any letters, figures or marks, each of such expression is a document. The illustrations further clarify that a writing, words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; a map or a plan, an inscription on a metal plate, on a stone or even a caricature are all documents. It goes to show that anything can be a document which conveys a meaning or an indication, but it was not stipulated

¶67

8

¶68

that to become a document, the document is to be signed or authenticated by the executant thereof.

¶69

Hence, under Section 3 of the Act, a document can be anything like letters, figures or marks, a map, words printed, lithograph, photograph and even inscriptions made on the metal plate or stone and a caricature can be considered as document. An inscription made on the metal or stone and caricature can be considered as a document under Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889, but it does not assume the character of an instrument. Hence, no stamp duty need to be collected.

¶70

In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.,¹ it is held as follows:

¶71

“A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

¶72

When the dispute surrounds the demystification of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to avail alternative remedy. Whether the property

¶73

belongs to the petitioner‟s father or to his mother, and whether the petitioner‟s father donated the land prior to his death, are all disputed questions of fact. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon those issues.

¶74

1 (2004) 3 SCC 553

¶75

9

¶76

Hence, the present Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to avail alternative remedy before the appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶78

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 22.12.2025

KBN

10

106