The court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the District Collector to erect fencing against land encroachments. The court held that protecting private property disputes falls out of the realm of statutory public duty owed by the respondents.
Writ petition is dismissed. WPMP.No.33461 of 2013 disposed of as infructuous.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27039 of 2013
Dated:17.09.2013
Between:
Shakeel Islam Khan And The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, And another.
…Petitioner
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.V.Suresh
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition appears to be a desperate piece of litigation initiated by the petitioner to some how protect his private property.
On the petitioner’s own showing, on the strength of an agreement of sale executed by one P.Tirumala Reddy in favour of his father, the latter has become the owner thereof and when certain persons sought to claim the property through fictitious sale deeds, criminal complaints were filed, besides filing of civil suits for cancellation of the sale deeds and that the said suits were decreed in 1356 and 1357 Faslies. The petitioner’s father filed W.P.No.18987 of 2011, for a Mandamus to direct the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to demolish the illegal construction made by certain private parties and that appropriate directions were given by this Court. Thereafter the petitioner has allegedly noticed several private persons encroaching upon the land and as he failed to remove these encroachments, he has given a representation to the respondents on 31.07.2013, requesting them to erect fencing around the land to prevent further encroachments. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the said representation is not considered.
In my opinion, when the petitioner claims that the land is a private land belonging to him, the respondents cannot be made to involve themselves in the private disputes between the petitioner and the alleged encroachers. No legal provision is brought to the notice of
this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner casting any duty on the respondents to protect the interests of the petitioner over the property, which is claimed to be a private property. In the absence of any such statutory public duty on the respondents, no Mandamus can be issued to them to consider the petitioner’s request for protecting the property. The petitioner is entitled to approach the competent judicial Forum for protection of the property claimed by him.
Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.33461 of 2013, filed for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
17.09.2013 v v
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents can be directed via mandamus to protect private land claimed by the petitioner against encroachments in the absence of a statutory public duty.
Shakeel Islam Khan
District Collector, Hyderabad District at Lakdikapool
another
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
