Dismissed

M/s. Platina Properties and Projects Private Limited, v. The Government of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Mar 2022WP/15021/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the interference with land possession during pendency of a civil revision, the Court held that the remedy lay with civil authorities, not under Article 226. Despite dismissing the petition, the Court extended status quo for thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Status quo extended for thirty days; liberty to file appropriate interim application before the revisional court.

M/s. Platina Properties and Projects… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15021 OF 2014

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

lVl/s. Platina Properties and ProJects Private Limited,, Formerly known as [//s. Kakatiya Constructions Limited, Refd.Offiice at 34, Nagarjuna Hills, Punjagutta, l- lyderabad-500082 Rep. by its Director Sri P.V. Rarnana Reddy S/o. Shankar Reddy.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District at Attapur, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Serilingampally, R.R. District.

¶15

t The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶16

6 The Superintending Engineer, lrrigation Department, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶17

..,RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of [,4andamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner during the pendency of the Revision Petition No.E1i45B9 of 2005 before the Respondent No.2 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Art.14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner's iland in Sy.No.38il to the extent of Ac.1-00 and 583 square yards, situated at Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District during the pendency of the Revision Petition No.E114589 of 2005 before the Respondent No.2.

¶19

___+

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 18615 OF 2014)

¶21

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 respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner land in Sy.No.3B/1 to the extent of Ac.1.00 and 583 square yards, situated at Khanamet vilalge, Serilingampally lVIandal, Ranga Reddy District during pendency of writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l & 4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI.SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY (sc FoR GHMC)

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER

¶27

¶28

THE HON'E LE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICESATISHCHANDRA SHARMA}

¶29

AND

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMAR S} VILI

¶31

WRIT PET ITION No.15021^{of 2OL4}

¶32

ORDER: [Per tle Hon'ble^{the(:hief JusticeSatishChandraSharma)}

¶33

The petitioner before this^{Court has filed the presentwrit} petitlon stating that he has^{purchasediand to an extent of} Ac.O.2O guntas in Sy.No.38/^{1 from Smt. Varalakshmi vide sale} cleed dated 25.03.1397 ,^land to^{an extent of Ac'O'20guntasin} S1,.No.38/ I from^{Sri Raghuveerand Sri Jayaveervidesaledeed} claLecl 20.03. 1997 and 583^{square yards in Sy No'38/ 1 liom} Slcd Raheem vide sale^{deeddated07 .06.2OoO-}

¶34

The petitioner's contention^{is that therespondel'It} ar,rthorities are^{interfering with his peacelul possession'The} petitioner has prayed for the^{followingrelief:}

¶35

¶36

"For the reasons^{stated in the accompanying affidavit,} the petitioner herein^{prays that the Hon'bleCourt may be} pleased to issue an appropdate^{writ,order or direction,} -more particularly one in the nature^{of writ of Mandamus declaring} ihe actiorr of the respondents^{in trying to interferewith the} peaceiul possession ol the^{petitionerduring the pendencyof the} hevision Petition No.E1/4589^{of 2005 belbre therespondent} No.2 as arbitrary, illegal^{and violation of Art 14, 21 and 300-A} oI the Constitulion of^{India and consequentlydirect the} respondents not to^{interfere with thepeaceful possessionof the} petitioner's Iand in Sy.No.38/^{1 to the extent of Ac1 00 and 583} "quare^{y".ds, situated at Khanamet Village,Serilingampally} Mandal,'Ranga^{Redd,vDistrict duringthe pendency of the} Revision Petition No.Dl 145a9^{ol 2OO5beforetherespondent} No.2 ancl pass such otller^{order or orders as the Hon'ble Court} rnal' deem fit ancl^{proper in the circllmstancesof the case"}

¶37

In the considered opinion of this Court, in case, thc

¶38

petitioner is claiming title ovei the property and the respondents are encroaching upon his land or trying to evict him, the remedy lies somewhere else and not before this Court by filing a u,rit petition under Article 226 of tLre Constitution of India.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of u,irh rr liberty to take recourse to the civil proceedings. The petitioncr's contention is that a review is also pending in respect oi thc same subject matter. The petitioner shall be free to file arr appropriate application for grant of intcrim order before the revisional Court. In the present case, as the order of status guo is continuing since 2014, the same will continue for a fnrthcr period of thirty (30) days from today.

¶40

Miscellaneous abplications pending, if any, shall stand

¶41

closed. There sha11 be no order as to costs.

¶42

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY' .A

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary,^{Government of Telangana'Revenue Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶47

The Joint Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad}

¶48

The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy Districtat} At[qpur, Hyderabad.

¶49

The tr/andal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally l,4andal, Serilingampally, R.R. District.

¶50

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lr,4unicipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶51

The Superintending Engineer, lrrigation Department,Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶52

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMN/ AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

One CC to SRl.G.II/ADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

1O.One CC to SRI.SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY (SC FORGHIVC) toPUCl 11.Two CD Copies

¶56

12.One spare copy

3i4r+

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010312022

ORDER

WP.No.'15021 of 2014

1..
IHE :; 14 .- 'i.'<br>a
(re
oo ,1 g APB 2ry22
.a*.
*

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶64

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶65

qFP
4-\o-

M/s. Platina Properties and Projects Private Limited, v. The Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Platina Properties and Projects Private Limited, v. The Government 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

Dundi Kumar, Warangal Dist Vs Secretary, Panchayatraj Dept., New Delhi and 7 Others

Balvinder Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Satya Murhty Sivalenka Vs Govt of Ap., Rep.Byits Prl.Secretary and 2 Oths

Swatantra Rai Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Transport,and 5

K,Bhagavan Raju Vs the State of Telangana

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank Officers Association Vs Union of India