Dismissed

Kallepally Venkatesham v. The District Collector

Telangana HC25 Nov 2013WP/33625/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition for declaration of illegal dispossession. The Court upheld prior findings that the land ceased to be agricultural and was used for School and Hospital, rendering Section 5A inapplicable. Writ remedy is inappropriate; a civil suit is the correct forum for title declaration.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of illegal dispossession denied; injunction not granted; Writ Petition and interim relief dismissed.

Kallepally Venkatesham Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33625 of 2013

¶3

Date:25.11.2013

¶4

Between: Kallepally Venkatesham, S/o Late Chennaiah

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And:

¶7

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and three others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring Acs.2.33 guntas in Survey No.15/E of Pargi Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the subject land’) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to interfere with or dispossess him from the subject land, without following due process of law.

¶12

The petitioner claims to have purchased the subject land under an unregistered sale deed, dated 20.12.1979, from its previous owner-Sri Naimatullah, S/o Mir Ibrahim Ali. The petitioner approached respondent

¶13

No.3 under Section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) for validation of the unregistered sale deed. Respondent No.3 has, accordingly, passed an order validating the sale. The said order was questioned in appeal before respondent No.2 by respondent No.4, who claimed that the subject land was gifted by the original owner and that in pursuance of the said gift, the subject land vested in the Medical and Health Department. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 vide his order, dated 20.06.2009. The said order was confirmed in Revision by order, dated 03.06.2010, of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of respondent No.2 and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.13402 of 2010. This Court by order, dated 28.08.2012, dismissed the said Writ Petition and confirmed the orders of respondent No.2 and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

In the present Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is trying to dispossess him from the subject land (In the prayer, the petitioner sought declaration that his dispossession is illegal).

¶15

At the hearing, Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is the absolute owner of the subject land and that the only ground on which the order passed in his client’s favour under Section 5A of the Act was set aside by respondent No.2, and was confirmed in Revision and Writ Petition, by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and by this Court, respectively, was that the subject land ceased to be the agricultural land. He further submitted that his client is in possession of the subject land and therefore, unless respondent No.4 follows due process of law, it cannot evict the petitioner from the subject land.

¶16

This Court while dismissing Writ Petition No.13402 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, inter alia, observed as under:

¶17

“A perusal of the pahanies relied upon by the petitioner himself discloses that the total extent in the Survey number is Acs.50.30 guntas, and the whole of it is being used as School and Hospital. Notwithstanding the entries made in the pahanies, respondent No.3 did not issue notice, either to the school or to the hospital. Further, the land has become the part of abadi, and the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be invoked for such lands.”

¶18

From a reading of the above-reproduced order of this Court, it is clear that not only that this Court has upheld the findings of respondent No.2 and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District that the subject land ceased to be agricultural land and therefore, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the subject land, but also a finding is rendered based on the pahanies that the total extent of Acs.50.30 guntas is being used as School and Hospital. Unless the petitioner is able to show better evidence before the competent Court to displace this finding, his plea that he is still in physical possession of the subject land cannot be accepted in this Writ Petition. Having suffered the orders at the hands of respondent No.2 and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in the previous proceedings and the dismissal of Writ Petition No.13402 of 2010 by this Court, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a comprehensive civil suit for declaration of his title and possession over the subject land.

¶19

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed by making it clear that the findings rendered by this Court in this order shall not in any manner prejudice the interests of the petitioner in the civil suit that may be filed by him.

¶20

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.41838 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 25^th November, 2013 DR

Kallepally Venkatesham v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallepally Venkatesham 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

Nune Rama Krishna,S/o.Pullaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gundreddy Narayanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary

Gangavaram Matyakarula Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Waheeduddin Vs The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare

Subhash Mandal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Thammana Manikanta Karthik, S/o Manga Raju Vs District Collector