Disposed

Smt. Salma Sultana, W/o. Abdul Hafeez v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Dec 2013WP/25211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ relief against the respondents' alleged interference with her possession of a property. The Court found a serious factual dispute regarding the nature of the land and its classification as ceiling surplus land. The Court held that these are questions of fact not suitable for a writ petition and directed the petitioner to file a civil suit for title and possession protect

What did the court decide?

Interim order continued for three months; writ petition disposed of with liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title and protection of possession.

Smt. Salma Sultana, W/o. Abdul Hafeez Vs The District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25211 of 2013

¶3

Date:11.12.2013

¶4

Between: Smt Salma Sultana, Wo Abdul Hafeez

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And: The District Collector, Hyderabad District and another.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vihar Ahmed Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of house bearing Old No.17-1-19/6, New MCH.No.17-1195/6, admeasuring 60 square yards or 50.16 square meters, situated at Madannapet, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the subject land’) without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

The petitioner pleaded that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land having acquired title through registered gift settlement deed, dated 07.02.2002, from her husband-Abdul Hafeez, S/o Abdul Raheem and that her husband has purchased the subject land from Smt Lalitha Bai, W/o C.Mukund Lal through an

¶12

agreement of sale deed, dated 27.03.2000. She has traced the title of her husband’s vendor to sale deed, dated 02.02.1985. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the alleged interference with her possession and enjoyment of the subject land by the respondents and their subordinates.

¶13

Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the subject land admeasuring 85 square meters in Survey No.32, correlating to T.S.No.32/P forming part of ceiling surplus land admeasuring 1,296 square meters, was taken possession under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’); that the said land was declared as ‘surplus’ on the declaration filed by its original owner-Sri Sam Bal Reddy, vide C.C.No.J2/9225/76; and that final proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 05.09.2007 and physical possession was taken by respondent No.2 on 08.02.2008 duly conducting panchanama. It is, thus, pleaded that the subject land has been in possession of the respondents.

¶14

No reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioner controverting the above-mentioned averments in the counter-affidavit.

¶15

Inasmuch as there is a serious dispute over the facts as to whether the subject land is a vacant land or any structure exists thereon and whether the same forms part of the ceiling surplus land, it is not possible for this Court to decide these disputed questions of fact. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a civil suit for declaration of her title and protection of her purported possession of the subject land. To enable the petitioner to avail the said remedy and protect her purported possession of the subject land, the interim order, dated 28.08.2013, granted in this Writ Petition shall continue for

¶16

a period of three months from today. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.31095 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 11^th December, 2013 DR

Smt. Salma Sultana, W/o. Abdul Hafeez v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Salma Sultana, W/o. Abdul Hafeez v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivalenka Sasidhara Prasad Vs The District Collector

P. Swapna Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Kedia Distilleries, Vs Mr.Sameer Sharma, I.A.S

Shaik Sharfuddin Saheb Vs Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh

C. Sundararamaiah, Vs The Government of A.P.

Garapalli Rama Laxmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh