Dismissed

Siramdas Janaiah v. The State of Ap Rep by its District Collector

Telangana HC9 Jun 2011WP/15332/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed a writ petition at the admission stage. The petition sought directions to stop illegal constructions by unofficial respondents. The court held that the remedy for disputed title lies in civil court, and without specific allegations of fraud, the police, Gram Panchayat, or Tahasildar cannot intervene.

What did the court decide?

No directions were granted as the petition was dismissed.

Siramdas Janaiah Vs The State of Ap Rep by its… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 15332 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The present Writ Petition has been instituted seeking directions to respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate action against respondents 5 to 8, who are illegally making constructions in land of an extent of Ac. 0.20 guntas situate in Survey No. 754/E of Devarkonda Town & Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶5

The 2^nd respondent is the Tahasildar, Devarkonda, while the 3^rd respondent is the Secretary of Devarkonda Gram Panchayat. The 4^th respondent is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. At page 35 of the paper book filed in this Writ Petition, a representation submitted to the 4^th respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.05.2011 has been enclosed. It is averred therein that the individuals whose names have been mentioned therein have illegally got a document of sale registered without the knowledge of the writ petitioner herein. Those people thereafter started making constructions. If the unofficial respondents have obtained building permission from the local gram panchayat based upon a document evidencing sale of land, such permission cannot be interdicted on any hypothetical basis at the instance of the 3^rd parties. If the writ petitioner feels that fraudulently the unofficial respondents have acquired title to the land in question, his remedy lies elsewhere. He has to necessarily invoke the jurisdiction of a civil Court and demonstrate by producing necessary evidence that he never executed any such sale deed in favour of the unofficial respondents. The unofficial respondents will also have an opportunity to rebut any such incriminating evidence which the writ petitioner can produce. Only after proper analysis of such evidence, one can arrive at a reasonably formed conclusion as to whether the title to the land in dispute has passed from the hands of the writ

¶6

petitioner to the unofficial respondents or not. Till it is so established, neither the local body nor the 4^th respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police can help the petitioner. It is altogether a different thing if the petitioner produces adequate material to demonstrate that the unofficial respondents have indulged in any fraudulent transaction, he can move the police with such a specific allegation, so that it can be investigated. The representation at page 35 does not contain any such averment. In the absence of any averment of fraudulent transactions carried out by the unofficial respondents, the local police cannot entertain representations from the petitioner and stop the unofficial respondents from making any constructions. Similarly, the local gram panchayat, can only stop constructions that are made by the unofficial respondents, if they are making such constructions either without obtaining prior permission or deviating from the approved building plan in making constructions. In the absence of any such activity, the present Writ Petition is misconceived.

¶7

With this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

¶8

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 9^th June 2011 ksld

Siramdas Janaiah v. The State of Ap Rep by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siramdas Janaiah v. The State of Ap Rep by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Padmavathi, Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sharmila Reddy Vs The District Collector

Medikonda Nageswara Rao Vs The sub Registrar, Singarayakonda

Smt. Cherukuri Nagendramma Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

T. Prasad Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Commissioner and Inspector General

R.S.Kumar Sankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh