This court held that a dispute between the petitioner and a private respondent regarding land encroachment and unauthorized construction is purely civil in nature. The court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to file a civil suit in the competent court instead.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.7965 of 2011
Dated 2 5 th Mrach, 2011
Between:
Nandagiri Damoder
Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others
Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Linga Reddy
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj
Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.5: --
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
A dispute which is predominantly civil in nature between the petitioner and respondent No.5 is sought to be given the colour of a dispute falling in the public law field. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 allegedly encroached into his land and started raising construction without obtaining permission from respondent No.4. As regards the first part of this grievance, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as the dispute in this regard is purely a property dispute and therefore, he is entitled to avail the common law remedy of filing a civil suit before the competent civil Court. The petitioner, however, incidentally complains that respondent No.5 has not even obtained permission from respondent No.4 for raising construction. Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayats, representing respondent No.4, stated that if that allegation is correct, his client will take appropriate action against respondent No.5 to prevent the unauthorized construction.
In the light of the above facts, while relegating the petitioner to the competent civil Court for claiming appropriate relief against respondent No.5 for allegedly encroaching into his land, the statement of the learned standing counsel that appropriate action will be taken against respondent No.5, if he is proceeding with the construction without permission is placed on record and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9890 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
25th March, 2011
________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
GHN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can entertain a writ petition regarding a property dispute between private parties.
Whether the petitioner has a right to file a civil suit for encroachment and unauthorized construction.
Nandagiri Damoder
The State of Andhra Pradesh
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
