Dismissed

Syed Zakir Hussain, B. E. Civil v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Mar 2021WA/75/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench dismissed a writ appeal challenging a lower court order that rejected a writ petition concerning land acquisition and compensation. The Court held that disputed questions of fact requiring full trial cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and dismissed the appeal as meritless.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in limine as meritless; pending applications disposed of along with it.

Syed Zakir Hussain, B. E. Civil Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

Item No.7

¶2

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No.75 OF 2021

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

¶6

This is the third round of litigation initiated by the appellant/writ petitioner. Prior to filing W.P.No.23472 of 2015, the appellant had filed W.P.No.11264 of 2014 praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 15.03.2014, passed by the learned UpaLokayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶7

The appellant had approached the Upa-Lokayukta praying inter alia that a direction be issued to the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal to demarcate a plot admeasuring 1028 square yards falling in survey Nos.149/A (part), 152/A (part), 153/A (part) Domara Pochampally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, in terms of four sale deeds by cancelling the pattas issued to weaker sections and the Police Station, Dundigal. After considering the complaint of the petitioner, the Upa-Lokayukta rejected the same on merits. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the appellant had filed the captioned writ petition, which was listed before a Division Bench and was disposed of vide order dated 15.04.2014 observing inter alia that the grievance of the appellant was purely a civil dispute and that the learned Upa-Lokayukta ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter. As a result, the findings returned by the learned Upa-Lokayukta on merits were held not to be

¶8

W.A.No.75 of 2021 Page 1 of 3

¶9

binding, if the appellant/writ petitioner would approach the appropriate forum for ventilating a grievance.

¶10

In spite of the observations made by the Division Bench that the grievance raised by the appellant was purely a civil dispute, in the very next year i.e., in 2015, the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.23472 of 2015 praying inter alia for directing the respondents to award him compensation and/or alternative land in view of acquisition of his land for allotment to weaker sections and Police Station. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 13.12.2020, observing inter alia that there are serious disputes with regard to the title and possession of the subject land, which cannot be determined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a regular and full-fledged trial is required in the matter. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to file a civil suit before the competent civil Court for seeking redressal of his grievance.

¶11

Despite two Courts returning concurrent findings that there are disputed questions of facts involved that cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present misconceived appeal again raising disputed questions of facts calling upon this Court to examine and arrive at a conclusion as to whether he is entitled to any compensation for the land in question from the respondents. We are of the opinion that there is no error in the observation made by the learned Single Judge. Apparently, there are disputed questions of facts raised by the appellant/writ petitioner in

¶12

W.A.No.75 of 2021 Page 2 of 3

¶13

the petition, which have been contested by the respondents. The entire issue needs to be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial.

¶14

It is therefore held that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. The present appeal is dismissed in limine as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.

¶15

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

¶16

______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
05.03.2021
Lur/pln

¶17

W.A.No.75 of 2021 Page 3 of 3

Syed Zakir Hussain, B. E. Civil v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Zakir Hussain, B. E. Civil 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

Sriven Marketing, Vs The Union of India

Mr. Perudi Suresh Vs The State of Ts

News item published in Deccan Chronicle Vs State of Telangana and 11 Others

G.Nirmala Vs The Registrar (Administration)

Om Prakash Modani Vs a P Mahesh Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Others Vs M/s Axis Clinicals Limited and 2 Others