Dismissed

Tamatam Vijaya Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jun 2015WP/18269/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition concerning alleged encroachment and illegal construction on disputed land, dismissed the petition holding that disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and possession could not be examined in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies available under law.

Tamatam Vijaya Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18269 OF 2015

¶3

Date:23.06.2015

¶4

Between: Tamatam Vijaya Kumar Goud .. Petitioner

¶5

And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary for Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18269 OF 2015

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner and is in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.251/AA1 of Varidyala Village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. As early as on 21.10.2013, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, the 2^nd respondent, that his neighbour occupied his land highhandedly and the same was also reported to the Tahsildar, Kollapur Mandal, the 4^th respondent, and also to the Surveyor.

¶9

He has also requested to conduct survey and fix boundaries. Accordingly, survey was conducted and boundaries were fixed. The petitioner further alleges that the 6^th respondent obtained permission on 14.11.2014 to construct building, as per the sanction accorded to him and plot number was shown as 33/3 and survey number as 258/E. Though the permission was granted in Survey No.258/E, the 6^th respondent is actually constructing the building in the land belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.251/AA1. Alleging that such illegal construction is taking place, the petitioner complained and since no action is taken, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶10

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition as well as the material papers disclose that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 6^th respondent regarding the extent, ownership and possession of the land. It appears that the petitioner and the father of the 6^th respondent were the joint purchasers of the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No.251/AA and subsequently each of them have apportioned Ac.0.20 guntas. The material does not clearly disclose that the

¶11

6^th respondent is encroaching upon the land owned by the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon a panchanama conducted on 28.12.2013. It is not clear from the said panchanama that the

¶12

6^th respondent was put on notice and he was given opportunity to participate.

¶13

Be that as it may, the documents apparently disclose that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 6^th respondent and unless it is established that the 6^th respondent is in illegal occupation of the land belonging to the petitioner and the alleged construction is taking place in the land of the petitioner, no further action can be taken by the competent authority. This being a disputed question of fact, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction.

¶14

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶16

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶17

23.06.2015

¶18

Tamatam Vijaya Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamatam Vijaya Kumar Goud v. The State of Telangana

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

M/s Mansoorabad Welfare Association, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Anwar Zeenathullah Shareef s/o Late Manzoor Shareef Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Aditya Homes Pvt., Ltd, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Severage Board

Pati Bhikshapathy Vs The State of Telangana

V.Dastagiri ,Dudekula Vannurappagari Dastagiri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Nayeem Vs The State of Telangana