Disposed

Smt. P.Vimala Devi, Warangal Dist and Another v. Registrar, Nit, Warangal and 3 Others

Telangana HC18 Apr 2022WP/16529/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding demolition of a wall and land ownership disputes, the High Court directed the NIT to apply for a formal survey by the Assistant Director to demarcate the survey numbers and lands claimed by both parties, pending resolution of civil suits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 1 to file an application with the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hanamkonda, for conducting a survey and demarcating the land and subject lands claimed by the pet

Smt. P.Vimala Devi, Warangal Dist and Another Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 16529 OF 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. P.Vimala Devi,^{Wo.Janardhana Reddy,Aged 53 years' Occ:House} hold, RJo.Kajipet, Warangal^District.

¶8

P.Rakesh Reddy,, S/o. Janardhana^{Reddy,Aged 34 years, Occ: Employee'} Fl/o.Kajipet, Warangal District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

A,ND

¶11

I National lnstitute of Technology^{(NlT) Rep.by its Registrar,Warangal.}

¶12

2 The Municipal Corporation^{of Warangal,Rep.by its Commissioner, Warangal}

¶13

.) C.Subojini, W/o.Late P.Hareesh^{kumar Reddy Agedabout 52 years, Occ:} . Househbld' RJo.Plot.No.3, sri^{Bhadrakali Enclave Naimnagar'Hanamkonda} Warangal.

¶14

4 C.Sekhar Reddy, S/o.Janardhan^{Reddy,Occ: Business, Rl/o.Plot.No.306'} road No.25, Jubilee Hills,^Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

.^{Petition underArticle 226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be} pleased toto issue an appropriate writ,^{orderor direction,moreparticularly one in} ihe nature of writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of the 1ST respondentin} resorting to demolition of their^{wall as arbitrary, illegal andconsequently direct} respondents to desist from^{repeating same, pending final decisionof the civil suits}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017^{(WPMP. NO:20285oF 20171}

¶18

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto direct} the respondents not to^{dispossess the petitionerswithout due process of law and} not to iaise any structure^{therein obstructing Our enjoyment of the propertyand} Recounstructions of the^{part of the wall demolished by the 4tn Respondenl on 27-} O4-2O17^pending disposal^{of the writ petition'}

¶19

t.A. NO: 2 OF 2017 WPM P. NO: 2143I OF 2017

¶20

Petition under Section I5.1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in supporr.ot tlre pet-itilnlinJ nfigir'L"rn may be preased permit to modify/amend the word atl.r responJe-ni ;;"1;ty;;rp"ndenr in the affidavit fired [;]5:3[::tle writ petition ano in tn" paius."rpn'l"ur,ing rerier and may rurthlr

¶21

IA NO: 10 F 2022

¶22

Between:

¶23

National lnstilute of Technology (NlT) Rep.by its Registrar, Warangal.

¶24

ANO

¶25

..,PETITIONERYRESPONDENT NO. 1

¶26

i#, X;Y["13"P";:#6:is?srdhana^{Reddv, Ased} 53 years, occ:House 4 Riffl,::rXifttr'l;nY,%,1?,i&':^{na na Reddv' Aged34} vea rs, occ: Emprovee,

¶27

¶28

rhe Municipa r co rporation or wa ra nsa r, -";;t:.t:H;,:l:[:ili:Xff t

¶29

6 C.Subojini, W/o.Late p.Han n**!":rriiFiliffi^{it!?i8155ffi ,IE::tf "_Xffi} :ffi [?xh?8fi o,

¶30

7 :":."fl H!i"r13,i"tJ?jJ,iliffi*Reddv,occ:Business,R/o.protNo.306,

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 4

¶32

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suooort 91 ," plfiiioi,,,inl nion Court may be pteased to J'i.EIiJ%,#.J;;l;;'oatea^{zaroqiio;;;;d i,y}r," o, o2s or 201t in

¶33

Counsel for the petitioners:SRl. C A R SESHAGIRI RAO

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. T MAHENDER RAO, SC FOR NIT

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: M/S. p. LAXMI, SC FOR GHMC

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4:

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PDTI ORDER: TION No. 16 529of 20t7

¶39

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 1 in resorting to demolition of the compound wall belonging to the petitioners, the present writ petition is liled.

¶40

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners and their family members are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring 1600 sq. yards situated at main road, Hanamkonda to Kazipet, having purchased the same from the family members oI respondent Nos.3 ald 4 under eight different sale dceds executed during the years 2[O2and 2O03, for the tohl sale consideration oI Rs.5g,gS,0OO/_. After the said purchase, petitioners have obhined permission for construction and when the construction was about to complete, respondent .Nos.3^and 4 herein, at the instigation of father of respondent No.3, have started making claim over part of the land purchased by the pedtioners and several civil sui6s and criminal cases were filed by both the parties. It is the specific case of the petitioners that when the civil suits and criminal proceedings are ripe for trial, some persons claiming to be on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, have come to the land of the petitioners on 27.O4.2O12 and demolished the c6rnporrrrd waJl partly in a

¶41

¶42

length of about 15 feet, in spite o[ showing the order dated O2.O7 .2014 passed by rhis Court in W.p. No.266O 4 of 2OO8 whereby the notice issued by respondent No.2 was set aside. Hence, aggrieved by the said action, the present Writ petition is hled.

¶43

On 28.O4.2O I 7, this Court while admitting the Writ Petition has granted interim direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners and not to raise any structure obstructing the petitioners, reconstruction and enjoyment of the property.

¶44

Seeking to vacate the said interim order, respondent No.1 filed I.A. No.l of 2Ot7 along with a counter affidavit mainly contending that for the purpose of establishing Regional Engineering College (now renamed as NIT i.e. respondent No. 1), the Land Acquisition Officer uid.e Award No.A/32O/59 dated '26.O3.1960 had acquired Acs.229-3O guntas of land in Waddepally and Kazipet Villages, Warangal, which includes the land admeasuring Acs.18-25 guntas in survey No.SSO acquired from Sri Pingele Venkat Ram Reddy and the land was handed over to respondent No.l in the year 196O itself. Reference was made to various civil and criminal cases hled in respect of the subject property. It is further averred that on 22.O5.2O17 when respondent No.2 tried to conduct survey to determine if the land

¶45

'r i r'l

¶46

¶47

encroached by petitioners is part of survcy No.550, the advocates of the petitioners have resisted the same and also threatened the authorities to initiate contempt proceedings. It is lurther stated that the petitioners have obtained permission for construction of G+2 residential building but illegally constructed RCC building stilt+G+2 commercial building in deviation of the sanctioned plans and thereafter applied for BRS. It is specifically urged that the petitioners under the guise of several disputes/ proceedings pending between the parties to the writ petition, have encroached the land belonging to respondent No.1. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the interim order and also to dismiss the writ petition.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1-NIT. Perused the record.

¶49

The main area of controversy between the petitioners and respondent No. I is with regard to demolition of transformer and interference with the subject land of the petitioners.

¶50

l,earned counsel for the^petitioners has contended that the petitioners have purchased the land admeasuring 682 Sq. Yards through a registered sale deed dated 04.02.2003 from the original owner Sri Charabuddi Shekar Reddy, who is arrayed as respondent No.4 herein. Learned counsel has

¶51

further stated that on an earlier occasion u'hen thc respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners,^they wcre constrained to approach this Court by rvay of writ petitions being W.P. No.26604 of 2008. This Court, by order dated 02.O7.2014 fras disposed of W.P. No.266O4 of 20O8 setting aside the notice dated 13.1O.2008, impugned therein, and also giving liberty to the respondent authorities to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if they find any encroachment made by the petitioners on the land belonging to the respondcnt-NlT. Bu| inspite of the said order, the oflicial respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and in the said process the authorities have demolished the pillar raised for the purpose of erecting the transformer. l,earned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the photographs hled by the petitioner herein, to support the said demolition.

¶52

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1-NIT has vehemently opposed the very maintainabilit5r of the Writ Petition stating that the petitioners under the guise of the interim orders obtained from this Court, are trying to encroach into the land of the respondent-NlT. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners does not contain any survey number

¶53

¶54

!V P \o 165.19 ot20l7

¶55

and more over no link documents are filed by the petitioners to substantiate that their vendor is having tirle to the subject property. Learned Standing Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the A',vard No.A/32Ol59, dated 26.O3.1960, passed in favour of the respondent_NlT whereby the land admeasuring Acs. lg-25 guntas in survey No.55O was acquired along with other lands totally admeasuring Acs.229_30 guntas for the purpose ol establishing the NIT. Learned Standing counsel has shted that u,hen the official respondents tried to take up the survey of the land to find out as to whether any land of the respondent_NlT has bcen encroached or not, as per the directions of this Court in W.p. No.266O4 of 200g, the petitioners have resisted the same and threatened the authorities of the NIT with contempt proceedings. Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to .Standing the various pahanies issued by the revenue authorities showing that an area of Acs. 1g-25 guntas, along with other lands, has been acquired by the authorities for the purpose of establishing NIT. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that by the time of filing of the present writ petition, three civil suits were pending before various Courts, in respect of the very same subject matter of the writ petition, filed by the parties herein i.e. O.S. No.54 of 2006 filed by respondent No.4 herein, O.S.

¶56

¶57

No.386 ol 2OO4 filed by thc petitioner herein and O.S. No.226 of 20O4 liled bv respondent No.3 herein and out of three suits, r.o suits i.e . O.S. No.54 of 2006 and O.S. No.3g6 of 2OO4 have been dismissed and O.S. No.226 of 2OO4 filed by respondent No.3 has been decreed. I.earned counsel has stated that as against the said judgments, First Appeals are filed and the same are pe nding adjudication.

¶58

Perused the material on record.

¶59

As seen lrom the plcadings as well as the documents, the main bone of contention between the parties is as to rvhether the land of the respondent-NlT in survey No.550 is encroached by the petitioners herein or not. The only way the dispute can be resolved is by way of survey of the subject lands and the land claimed by the respondent No.l. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1-NIT to hle an appropriate application before the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hanamkonda District, seeking survey of the subject lands claimed by the petitioners and also that of the respondent No. I-NIT and on such application being filed, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hanamkonda District, shall survey and demarcate the land in survey No.550 and the subject lands claimed by the petitioner. If after the

U^p ,, 165rr.i';5i,

survey it is found that the petitioners have encroached into any area of land belonging to respondent_lvlT, then the respondent No. 1 is free to take necessary action against the petitioners herein, strictly in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that before conclucting any survey, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hanamkonda District, shail put all the parties on nodce and in case any work memos are filed, the same shall also be taken jnto considerarion. lt is made giear that pendency of any suit or appeal shall not ,. " ;::j'; postponing or denying thc survey.

¶64

With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposecl of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶65

;.'l-,1++Etb,i!s,"#fl //TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 2. Ixs 35fliil',31;,ixi:[,fl ,li:;llY': ""'rechnorosv^(Nrr),wara ngar J, Il" t^{.', oi,""t",,'d"il";i'H"{{l:::XJl,Yii?lf,i[yfilffil} 4. One CC to SRI. C A R SLS 5. 6.7. gl" 99 to n,,a^pI MAHENbER ilil'i #."# RAo, mffiil"rT$toPucli;;dX-NHio"r.i ffi 33 B;[:, o- One Spare bopy

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATED:.1a10412022

$1
tx ttt

ORDER

WP.No.16529 of²⁰¹⁷

Disposing of the^WP without costs.

¶79

@
1\
atq ,,-

Smt. P.Vimala Devi, Warangal Dist and Another v. Registrar, Nit, Warangal and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P.Vimala Devi, Warangal Dist and Another v. Registrar, Nit, Warangal and 3 Others

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

Sai Leela Homes Plot Owners Welfare Association, (Regd. No.405/2019) Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Smt. Pendem Narayanamma Vs Sri Rv Karnan

Ravuri Jenna Reddy and 4 others Vs Shri Rajeevgandhi Hanumanthu I.A.S and another

P. Kishore Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

The Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited. Vs The State of Telangana

Bollagani Nageswar Rao, And 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others