A writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a property petition was disposed of. The Court held that title disputes requiring fact-finding are outside its writ jurisdiction and lie in civil courts, refusing interference.
Writ appeal disposed of without interference; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTHDAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPE AL NO: 149 OF 2019
Writ Appeal under clause15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orderdated 21 .12.2018passed in the W.P.No.10725 ot 2011 on the file of the High Court
Between:
(Petitioners No. 2 and 3 Rep. by its GPA HolderA. VenkateshwarReddys/o late A. Narasimha Reddy Aged46-years, Occ. Business Rio. PlotNo.41 , Lumbini SLN Springs, Gachibowli,Hyderabad)
...APPELLANTS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants: SRI A.KRANTHIKUMAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GPFOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2& 3: SRI C.KALYAN RAO, SC
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4to 7: GP FORHOME
The Court delivered the following:
THE HON'B ,E THE CHIEF JUS CE SATISH CHANDRA SHARIIIA AND
THE HO T'BLE SRI JUSTICE AND KUMAR SHAVILI
W.A.No 149 of 2OL9
JUDGMENT: | 'er tha Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandrc St@mo)
The present writ appea_l is arising out of an order dated 21 .12.2OL8 Iassed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No. lO72;i of 20It.
The ur disputed facts of the case reveal that the appellants/w it petitioners were claiming ownership over the property, adn reasuring Ac.O.12 guntas, bearing plot No.1 in Survey No.! 69/ 1&2 situated at Nagarkurnool Town, Mahaboobnag ar District. It was stated that the police was trying to t rke possession of the property of the appellants/wr it petitioners. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, as disputed questions of fact were involved.
In the c onsidered opinion of this Court, in case the appeilants/wr t petitioners are the owners of the subject property, the r are claiming title and they are being dispossessed, :he remedy lies somewhere else but not before this Court. Tl e appellants/writ petitioners shall certainiy be free to file a c vil suit along with an application for grant of injunction anc a1l the facts can be looked into by the trial Court, after ev dence is adduced by the parties. This Court does not find a ry reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid
liberty.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
//TRUE COPY//
S Di.CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY EGIS
SECTIO OFFICER
I
To,
MRC
NPJ
q
HIGH COURT
DATEOi07l0112022
ORDER
WA.No.149 of 2019
1 HE s i-) .o<br>/A i;
ooJ 01 Fi:il ?.tJ?
.-r.r,
'.'
'i<br>
DISPOSING OF THEV IRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
@40
A^_---
(v
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court is competent to decide ownership and title disputes involving dispossession when disputed questions of fact are involved.
A. Alivelamma
Dr. C. Rajitha Reddy
A. Venkateshwar Reddy
The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar
The Zillapatishad, Mahaboobnagar
The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nagarkurnool
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
