Dismissed

Velidi Harinath baba v. The District Collector

Telangana HC17 Dec 2013WP/36899/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged government construction of a Junior College on land he claimed ownership. Court held title disputes cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. Petitioner directed to file a civil suit for declaration of title. Writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to approach civil court; interim relief petitions disposed of as infructuous.

Velidi Harinath baba Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.36899 of 2013

¶3

Date:17.12.2013

¶4

Between: Velidi Harinath, S/o Late Kesava Rao

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And: The District Collector, Srikakulam District and five others.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Udaya Bhaskara Rao

¶9

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 the respondents in trying to construct a building for Government Junior College over an extent of Ac.1.30 cents of land in Survey No.150/11 of G.Sigadam Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District (for short ‘the subject land’), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

I have heard Sri P.Udaya Bhaskara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶13

The petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents and Acs.2.13 cents in Survey Nos.150/11 and 150/7, respectively, in G.Sigadam Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. He has further pleaded that the said lands were originally purchased by his maternal great

¶14

grand father in the years 1926 and 1927; that the said lands were originally situated in Survey No.185 and later, the said survey number was revised and sub-divided as Survey No.150/11 and 150/7; that during the period when his grand mother was alive, the subject land, which is situated adjacent to Survey No.150/7, was being used by the students of Zilla Parishad High School, G.Sigadam Village as play ground.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of constructing the Junior College building over the Government land admeasuring Acs.3.93 cents in Survey No.148/4, respondent No.4 started constructing the building over the subject land. When the petitioner approached the respondents, he was asked to produce the documents such as title deed, etc., proving his title in respect of the subject land. Feeling aggrieved by the commencement of construction of the Junior College building, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶16

The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta with a complaint. In connection with the said complaint, respondent No.3 has submitted a report to respondent No.1, wherein he has, inter alia, stated that the petitioner’s grand mother was the owner of the subject land and that through a purported oral gift, she has donated the land to the Zilla Parishad High School, G.Sigadam Village, for being used as play ground. While the said complaint before the Hon’ble Lokayukta is pending, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶17

At the hearing, Sri P.Udaya Bhaskara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the stand taken by respondent No.3 that the subject land was orally gifted by the petitioner’s grand mother to the Zilla Parishad High School, G.Sigadam Village, cannot be countenanced. He has, however, conceded that no revenue records such as adangal and pattadars

¶18

passbook standing in the name of the petitioner have been filed by him to, prima facie, show that he has been exercising his right over the subject land and that he is in possession thereof as of now.

¶19

When there is a serious dispute relating to the right of the petitioner to claim the subject land, which was allegedly gifted by his grand mother for a philanthropic purpose, such a dispute cannot be adjudicated in a Writ proceeding. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court and seek declaration of his title and other appropriate reliefs by way of a civil suit.

¶20

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.45910 and 45911 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶23

17^th December, 2013 DR

Velidi Harinath baba v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velidi Harinath baba 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Sohail, Vs The District Collector

Somoni Appa Rao Vs The Tahsildar

C.Ramaiah, Vs Government of A.P

M/s. J.C.N. Restaurant and Bar, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Managing committee of Edgah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

Nutakki Veera Swamy, Sio.late.Subba Rao, Vs The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City