Dismissed

Kamatam Sujatha v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC24 Nov 2021WP/21013/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging inaction against police officials accused of encroaching on the petitioner's purchased land. The Court held that the dispute involved complex boundary questions and conflicting survey reports, constituting a civil matter beyond writ jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to seek relief from the competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of the title and boundary dispute.

Kamatam Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21013 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kamatam Sujatha, w/o. Nagesham, aged about 32 years, occ. Housewife, r/o H.No.'1 11/B, Alampur X Roads, Pulluru village, Undavalli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶9

...PETITTONER(s)

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Deputy lnspector General of Police, State of Telangana, office^at Lakdikapool. Hyderabad.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 5. The Station House Officer, Undavalli P.S. Jogulamba Gadwal District. 6. Mr. Ivl.Jagan lVlohan, S.l. of Police Undavalli Police Station, Jogulamba^Gadwal District.

¶14

Mr. Raghavendra, Police Constable Undavalli Police Station, Jogulamba^Gadwal District

¶15

...RESP.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,^{more particularlyone in the nature} of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the^{Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 hereinin} not taking any action against the Respondent Nos. 5 and 7^for encroaching^{into the} petitioner's own plot No. 111/A Sy.No.257 situated at Alampur X Road, Pulluru village, Undavalli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District illegally and^highhandedly without any manner of right^pursuant to the complaint dt.13/1^1/2020, as^being lllegal, arbitrary, unjust, u nconstitutio^na I and violative of^{Article21 of the} Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.² to^{4 hereinto} take stringent action against the Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 in accordance^{with Law} and to prevent them from interfering into the^{peaceful possession and enjoyment of} the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned^plot.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to direct} the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein to take^{immediateaction pursuantto the} complaint d1.1311112020,^pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶19

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Lection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sr. )port of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. i to 7 herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the pe' tioner in respect of plot No. 1 1^'1lA Sy. No.257 situated at Alampur X Road, Pu luru village, Undavalli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, pending disposal of th .. main Writ Pbtition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petiti rner : SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Resp rndent Nos.1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Resp rndent Nos.6 & 7:-------

¶23

The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURAI}L[, SIU JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

\'.P.No.2l0l3 OF 2 020

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home.

¶28

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in taking action against respondent Nos.5 to 7 for encroaching the plot of the petitioner being plot No.lll/A in Sy.No.257, situated at Alampur X Road, pulluru Village, Undavalli Mandal, Jogulamba-Gadwal District and not acting upon the complaint dated l3.l L2020 filed by rhe petitioner.

¶29

The petitioner srares that he belongs to scheduled caste community. He purchased the subject plot under a registered sale deed vide document bearing No.495/2020 dated 14.02.2020 from its lawful owner. He applied for permission before the Gram Panchayat for construction of a shed. Adjacent to the plot of the petitioner, there is an open site belonging to the police department which was given by the Bhoodan Yagna Board for the purpose of construction of police outpost. The police officials got the survey conducted. During such survey, the documents of the petitioner were verified and the propemy r,,as derrarcated. The police officials have erected fence around their plot. The revenue officials have clearly demarcated the land of the police allotted by the Bhoodan Yagna Board and the rernainirrg land in Sy.No.257 belonging to the petitioner is a private patta land it rvas made into plots. The petitioner states --

¶30

=.-

¶31

)

¶32

that house plot were sold to various persons. The Bhoodan yagna Board has issu:d letter dated 03.05.2007 confirming rhat the land admeasuring A :s.6-20 Gts., in Sy.No.257 does not belong to them. On 08.1 lr2020. respondent Nos.5 to 7 illegally trespassed into the plot of thc petitionr r and pulled down the structures and they Iodged a false complaint against the petitioner in F.l.R.No.l53 of 2020 and the same was regis ered for the offences under Sections 447 and l2l IpC. An application was submitted by hLrsband ol'the peritioner under the RTI Act seekir g information and docurnenrs pertaining to allotment of land for th, police outpost. Information was furnished by the concerned offir er vide letter dated 29.07 .2020 stating that there are no documents ava lable. Alleging that police are misusing their power, a written compk int was lodged by the petitioner before respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 3.11.2020 to take stringent action against respondent Nos.5 to 7 and o restrain them from interfering with the possession of the plot of the I ,etitioner and as there rvas no response. the instant writ petition is filed

¶33

A countr r affidavit is filed by respondent \1o.4 fbr hirnself and on behalf of r:spondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. lt is stated that land admeasuring 716 sq.yards in Sy.No.257 ol puliuru \iillage (in plot Nos.9P, 10P, 8P, llP, 7P, l2p) was alloued in lavour of the Superintendenl of Police, Mahabubnagar District by the A.p. Bhoodan Yagna Board br construction of Alampur X Road police Station. Such allotment was made by the Bhoodan yagna Board on the request of police depalment and on payment of Rs.10,000/- by the police

¶34

department in f'avour ol' the Board. As^per the^{directionsof the} Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, the Deputy^{Inspector of Survey,} Jogulamba-Gadwal District had conducted^{survey and submitted a} report wherein it was found that^{policedepartmentwas in possession} of Sy.Nos.252 and 257 of Pullur^{Village. In Sy,No.252, there is an} area of 532 sq.yards and in Sy.No.257,^{there is an area of 141 sq.} yards, total being 673 sq. yards. But on verification^{ofrecords,it was} found that 720 sq. yards was allotted to^{the policedepartment'} However, as per record, 726^{sq.yatds was allotted to the police} department in the^{year 2005. The Mandal Surveyor conducted survey} individually, but could not^{con.rpletethe same as there were} constructions aror-rnd the said^{survey numbers.As seen from the} survey repoft. only 673^{sq. yards was available on groundand} 43 sq.yards is under encroachrtent^{and in that connection,two crimes} were registered by Undavelly^{P.S i'e.,} Cr.No'l8^{of 2020 for the} offences under Sections^{447 and 427 IPC and Cr.No.153of 2020 for} the offences under Sections^{447 and 427 lPC.The investigation in} Cr.No. 18 of 2020 revealed^{that construction activityis being takenup} by one Murari Maheswara^{Reddy, s/o Ram Reddy,whereas in} Cr.No. 153 of 2020, the^{encroachmentwas made by Kamatham} Nagaseshan, s/o Kasimanna.^{Noticeunder Section 41-A was issued to} the accused persons^{and investigationwas conducted'The police on} further verification^{lound that petitionerhas purchased the subject} land on 14.02.2020^{fi'om her vendorviz', Bachu Nagarajuclaiming} that the said^{propertyis Iocatedin Plot No. lll/A'The document}

¶35

¶36

¶37

relied on by the petitioner shows that the eastern boundary is Plot No.112,ts, when as the eastem boundary for the said plot is allotted to the police depart nent situated in Sy.No.257. Thus. location of the plot ofthe petitioner s doubtful. Petitioner had encroached into the police land and claimer title over the same. The rcnreclr lbr the petitioner is to approach the :ompetent civil courr. There are disputed questions of law. In the cr unter affidavit, it is also asser-ted b.v- respondent No.4 that petitioner hr s approached this court with unclean hands.

¶38

In view r f the above facts, more particularly as there is a boundary disput : between the petitioner and the police department and further adm ttedly the adjacent land in Sy.No .257 was allotted to the police depar ment by Bhoodan Yagna Board, the dispute, if any, between the peti ioner and police department is purely civil in nature. There is an alle lation of encroachment of land allotted to the police department by t re petitioner and two crimes were registered. In the background circ rmstances, it is not appropriate fbr this coul.t to enter upon disputed q restions of fact.

¶39

Learned ounsel fo, the petitioner subnrirs that sur.l,ev *,as conducted in t re land ol the petitioner and that ol the police department and lemarcation was done. However, this court is of the view that if ar y adjudication is undertaken, it woutd anlount to deciding the titl dispute which is not in the realm of an enquiry under writ^jurisdiction under Article226 ofthe Constitution of India.

¶40

)

¶41

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as devoid of merits and the petitioner is given libeny to approach the competent civil court in case he has got any dispute with regard to title and possession and if there is interf'erence by the police department in respect of the plot said to have been purchased by him under a registered document. In case the petitioner approaches the competent civil court and seeks for any temporary injunction order, the concemed court shall pass orders without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. No costs.

¶42

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed

¶43

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// (tu SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

One CC to Sri Karunakar Reddy, Advocate topUCl 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State 6f Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

Two CD Copies

¶47

One Spare Copy

Sm rt)ox

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411112021

ORDER

WP.No.2101 3 ot 2020

:.4-:<br>:9IAIE O-<br>6
/d
aJ ? 1ott?t?1
I ))

¶54

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

y. il \ ')/ G)

Kamatam Sujatha v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamatam Sujatha v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

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

Durgam Laxman Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Vunnam Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

K.Veereshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Pallapu Raju Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Ahmed Hussain , Amer Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Garikapati Venkateswara Rao Vs Union of India and 3 Others