Allowed

Gitte Namdev v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023WP/7254/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging an impugned order granting Status Quo in land dispute proceedings. The court found the order contrary to law due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural lapses, citing a final prior order. The impugned orders were set aside with a direction to dispose of the main suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter and order set aside; respondent directed to dispose main suit within three months; construction subject to suit outcome; no costs.

Gitte Namdev Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

W.P NO: 7254 OF 2023 AND 35733 0F 2022

¶7

w.P. NO. 7254 0F 2023

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Gitte Namdev, S/o: late Baba Rao, Aged about 77 yearc, Occ. Aqriculture, R/o H-No.5-116, Viltage and tVlandal Gudihatnoor, District Adilabad.^'

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

I The State of Telangana, rep by the Principle Secretary, Social Welfare Department. Secretariat, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Addrtronal Agent to the Government Cum Project Officer, l.T_D.A. Utnoor, Head Quarters Utnoorn, District Adilabad

¶14

3 The^ Executive Engineei, Roads and Building Division, District Adilabad, rep by S. Narsaiah - S/o Chandraiah, R/o R and B office, Collectorate chowk. Adilabad town, District Adilabad.

¶15

4 Grampanchayath, Gudihatnoor, represented By Panchayath Secretary, Gudihatnoor, l\ilandal and District Adilabad.

¶16

5 Gitte Dinkar.

¶17

6 Gitte Vaman Rao.

¶18

(Respondent No.5 and 6 are not necessary parties in This writ petition).

¶19

-..RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances slated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bg pleased to pass an order, or orders, direction or issue a writ more^particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, (i) calling the records^relating to LA.No.1/2023 in case No A4/CPC/127912021 dated. 03-03-2023^from 16. respondent no.2 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative^{of Article} 14, 21 of the Constitution of lndia and against the basic and fundamental^principles

¶21

of civil laws and as weI as against the principres of naturar justice and set aside the same, (ii) permit the petitioner to continue the construction work in Sy.No.gg of Gudihatnoor village, Ivlandal and District Adilabad in the area of 1 acre g guntas.

¶22

IA NO 1 0F 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass an order by suspending the impugned order vide l.A.No.1/2023 in case No.A4lcPC/12 7gr2o21 dated: 03-03-2023, permit the pet,tioner to continue the construction work in Sy.No.gB of Gudihatnoor village, l,4andal & District Adilabad rn the area of 1 acre g guntas, pending disposal of main W p. in the interest of Justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S. CHANDRASEKHAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1,2 and 3: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRl. KISHORE RAO , SC

¶27

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 35733 0F 2022

¶28

Between:

¶29

pittg.\gm_dgv, S/o: late Baba Rao, 1!9ed about 77 years. Occ. Aqricutture, R/oH.No.5-116,VillageandMandal,Gu"dir'ain-oorblstjrictnoiraua

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

The State of Telangana, rep by the principle Secretary, Social Welfare Uepartment, Secretariat, Telangana, Hydbrabad.

¶33

2 The Additional {gent to the Government, Cum project Officer, l.T. D.A Utnoor, District Adilabad.

¶34

3 The^ Executive Engineer, Roads and_Building Divrsion. Dr>lrrct Adilabad. rep by S. Narsaiah s/o Chandraiah..r/o R and B;flic; a;lt;,rlorate chowk, Adilabad town, District Adilabad.

¶35

.RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit iir"o ir-,.ere*iir,, the High court may be pleased to pass an order, or orders, directio" ", irrr" i n th e natu re "i;i ;;;;"drfS, f i I o".Lr,.; ;" ";.."":,yJr'"T;;,[:i""l;lLil: No 2 herein vide No.A4lcpc,ztetioila;ir.i' isiii'ur2 to the Assistanr Director

¶37

survey and Land Records Adilabad and Revenue Divisional officer Adilabad directing them to report the nature of the land situated in sy.No.9g of Gudihatnoor village and Mandal District Adilabad while exercising civil jurisdiction under cpc, in the absence of any such petition filed by the respondent no.3/plaintiff in a civil suit is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia. (ii) Declare the further action of the respondent no.2 to entertain the suit which is not maintainable under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and as well as entertaining the interim application seeking injunction with wrong section of [aw. (iii) consequently direct the respondent no.2 to dispose the interim application filed in a civil suit vide court No.A4lcPcl127gl2o21 as early as possible ty cancelling the letter issued by the respondent no.2 dated. 251812022.

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶39

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 pass an order suspending the operation of the letter issued by the Respondent irlo.2 while exercising civll jurisdiction under cpc vide Letter No. No_A4lcpc/12 7gl2o21 dated. 251812022, directing the Assistant Director Survey and Land Records Adilabad and Revenue Divisional officer, Adilabad to report the nature of land situated in Sy.No.98 of Gudihatnoor village and t,4andal, District Adilabad, pending disposal of main W.P. in the interest of Justice.

¶40

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶41

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 pass an order directing the respondent no.2 to dispose the interim application in civil suit No.A4lcPC 1127912021 as early as possible according to order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) of CPC, pending disposal of main W.p. in the interest of Justice.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S CHANDRASEKHAR

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶44

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶45

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶46

W.P. No.7254 of 2023 and 35733 OF 2022

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

These tq,o rvrit petitions nre lllerl seeking following reliefs: W.P.No.7254 of 2023:

¶49

¶50

This writ petition is fil:cl seeking Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to LA.No.I of 2023 in Case No.A4/CPC/R79 l2O2l d:rtcrl r)3 03.2023 lrom respondent No.2 and declarc tl-re sarnc as illcea1. arbitran' :rnd violertion of Article 14 and 27 of Constitution of Inclrir irncl irq:rrnst thc basic fundamental principles of civil l:rs's as s'ell rs :rg:.rinst rhe principles of natural justice and set asicle t}-re s:,rLrr' i1n(l permit [he petitioner to continue thc constrtiction oI rr^, r-k in Sr-rn,cv No.98 of Gudihatnoor village, Mandal ancl Adilabad Distr-ic1 in :rn area of Acs. 1.09guntas.

¶51

W.P.No.35733 of 2022:

¶52

This rvrit pctition is lllccl sccl<ing u,rit of mandamus to Declare the Lettcl issr-rccl bv t)rr: Iicspondcnt No. 2 herein vide No. A4 /CPCI 1279 /2021 dated 25i8/2O22 to the Assistant Director Survey and Larrrl Rccords, r\ciilnbacl :rnd Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Adilabtrci dircctilrg th('nr to rcport thc n:rture of the land situated in Sr.No.')B ol^{(irtrlilrirtnool} vrllirsr: and Mandal District Adilabad u i-Lilc cxcrcising r.;r iJ jtrlisrlir.tiort r_rndcr CpC in the

¶53

¶54

absence of any such petition filcd by [he respondcnt^{no.3/plaintiff} in a civil suir is illcgal, arbitrary,^{violativeof Article 14, 27 and} 3O0A of the Constitulion ol lndia and^{Lo declare the furtheraction} of the respondent No.2 to entertain the^{suit which isnot} maintainable under Section 6 of the Spccific^{Relief Act and as well} as entertaining the interim application seeking injunction^with wrong section of larv and consequently direct the^{respondentNo.2} to dispose the interim zrpplication filed in a Civii^{Suit vide Case No.} A4 ICPC / 1279 I 2O2l as ca.rlv as possible by^{cancellingthe letter} issued by the rcspondent No.2 dated 25/8/2022.

¶55

Heard Sri S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for^the petitioner in botl'r the u'rit pctitions and learned Assistant Government Pleadcr lor Social^{Welfare appearingfor respondent} Nos. 1, 2 and 3 ir-r both the rvrit pctitions, Sri Kishore^{Rao learned} Standing Counsel appc:,rring on behalf ol respondent^{No.4 in} W.P.No.7254 of 2023. l-earncd counsel for the^petitioner submits that in W.P.No.7254 of 2023 respondent^Nos.S and 6^{are not} necessary parties.

¶56

Witl-r the consent of rcspective parties these writ^petitions are disposed ol at tlrc stagc o[ aidmission.

¶57

¶58

In W.P.No.7254 ol 202l, lcarned counsel for the pctitioncr submits th;rt rcspr;1161r.nI No.:] lilccl suit O.S. No.A4/CPCl1,27l) ol 2O21 ort tlre l-ilc ol rcspr>ndcnt No 2 seeking recovenr of possessior.r of the plaint sc'l.cclulc [F] IlLr nqa log,(R&B) land admcasuring ro nn cxtent ol' 1Jo Srltrarc varcls ir-r Survey No.9g/2 o[ Gudihathnoor Village and N4irndal, Adilabacl District and dispossessed orr 22.06.2O2I lx' rlelcnd:rnts thurcin under Section 6 of Spccilic Rclicl Acr irncl rr Mandatorv rn.junction to demolish the illcq.rl constntctions o1 I{lrlgics ovcr tlte plaint Schedule IB Bungalorr,, Ianci ;rnci otitlr rclicl's. Alonq u.rth the suit, respon(le11t No.3 filcrl alrpiii:rrtirin li)l- rl-.1nt of tcrnltorarrT injunction/ Sf atus quo ag:rirtst the rlr:lcrrrlirnt N()s^'l , 2 ancl 3 thcrcin. On 28.08.202 I resportdcnt No,2 qlanlt,cJ .>^;nrrr.s Qrro or-clr:r and thereafter, on 18.09.202 I vac.rted th(' .S-t.rllt-s Quo order- sr;rnted earlier i.e., on 28.08_202 I :rnrl tlrc siricl orci<,r-hlrs bcconrc llnal

¶59

4.1. Ht' lLrrLh,'r conter-'rdcrl tltat respondent No.2 treated tl-rc letter clarerl^'2E.O2.2023 submitted by respondent No.3 as rntt'rlocLrtorr irpplir::rtion i.c., I.A.No. I of 2023 and basing on tltc sarrrr' ltc prrsst,cl tnrprrrrucd orrl<'r directing both tlte partics t(l rl.rlLrrrIrrirr .S1.tlr/s ()uo irntil Iur'1ltct- orclers in respcct ol-propcr-1r. to :lrt^(']:l( ll ,rl rlcs. I O() qi1111;15 ir-r Survcy NO.qB Situirtc(i llt (l rtrl il lir l rtr,, rr- r i l t;rilc ir ncl N4 rr ur l:r l, Aclilabacl District.

¶60

¶61

4.2, Lcarned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contcndcd that thc relief sought in the main suit i.e., O.S.No.A4ICPCI 1279 /2O2L was only in respect of land to an cxtcnt ol 14O square yards, whereas in I.A.No .1 ol 2O23 respondent No.2 mentioned the schedule property as Acs.1.09 guntas and the same is contrary to the pleadings and relief sought in the suit and respondent No.2 is not having any authority or j urisclict icrr-r to grant Status Quo more than the relief claimed in ll.re rnain suit.

¶62

Irr W.P.No.35733 of 2022,learned counsel for the pe titione r contended l.hat the impugned letter uide No.A4/CPC/ 1,279 /2021 dated 25.08.2022 issued by respondent No.2 is excess of lurisclictiorr^rvhenthe suit filed by^{respondcnt No.3} is^pending belorc rcspondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is not herving juriscliction to pass impugned order basing on thc lcttcr on administraLive capacity while adjudicating the proceedings on par with Civil Court exercising the powers conferred under Regulutions. 1959.

¶63

6 [)cr contra, learned Government Pleader submits that responclcnt No,.3 is the owner of the property Acs. 1.09 gur-rias cover-r'd urrrlcr-Surwey No.98 and the petitioner is trying to lnakc

¶64

¶65

construction in 140 square 1-arcls of land out o[ Acs_ 1.09 guntzrs. Subsequently, respondent No.3 filed amenclment arpplication seeking amendment of relief scir-rght in the suiL to the entirc extent of Acs. 1.09 guntas covered in Survey No.9B. I.le rccluestcd the CoLlrt to direct respondent No.2 to dispose of the marn sujt filccl bv respondent No.3 by fixing reasonable time.

¶66

Having considered tl-rc nval submissioris made by rcspectivc parties and materiai placed on recorrl, it:,rppt,ars that rcspondcnt No.3 filed suit scckii-rg recovcry oI lrossession ancl othcr reliefs in respect of 140 square yarcls of lancl in Snrvcy No.98/2 on the file of respondent No.2. It is arlso an ur-idisputed inct that respondent No.2 initially grantecl SIrrlu.s euo on 2a.l)4.2o27 and subsequently vacated thc same on 19.09.202 I ancl thc said order has become Iir-ral. Respondent No_3 submitted representation uide Lr.No.EE/R&B / ADB 12022 23 I ttt3 clared 28.02.2023 to respondent No.2 and the said represcnration u,as trcated as application i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2023 and rcspondent No.2 passcd the impugned order on 03.03.2023 directing thc parties l lrer-crirr to maintain Status euo unLil furthcr orclc.rs. Le :rrned cotrrrscl for the petitioner rightly contenclccl lhar resltonclcnt No.3 illcci sL.rit ir-rvolcing provisions rrnder Secrio. 2(r, r-rriler- or.crer VII ]lulL: I of C. P.C. trnd Section 14 of Agenc.r. I_arv iie url t.ith Scction

¶67

¶68

151 of C.P.C,. Respondent No.2 while adjudicating the^proceedings exercising the judicial powers conferred under^{provisions of} Regulations, without following the procedure contemplated^under lai.r,, treated the representation dated 28.02.2023 submittccl^by respondent No.3 as interlocutory application and^passcd the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 and thc same is contrary to lawAdmittedly, the Sfatus Quo order granted by respondent No.2 on 21 .O8.2O2I was already vacated or1 18.O9 .2O'21 an d the respondent No.2 is not entitled to pass the itnpugned orcler-

¶69

It is needless to observe that the petilioner has liled affidavit before this Court giving an undertaking that l-re rvill hand over the physical possession of thc schcclule propertv arnd he rnay not claim any equities in the event if respondent No.3 succeedeci in the suit proceedings.

¶70

In view of the same, the impugned [cttcr datccl 25.Oa.2O22 issued by respondent No.2 in W.P.No.35733 of 202'2 and lhe impugned order dated 03.03.2023 passed in I.A.No. 1 ol 2023 in W.P.No.7254 of 2023 are contrary to larr'zrnd the same are liable to be set aside. Accordingly set aside. Hou'cvcr, r-espondent No.2 is direc[ed to dispose of the main suit aftcr givir-rg opportunrt' 1o the p:rrties within a period of three (3) mor-rths frorn thc datc ol rcccript

¶71

¶72

of the copy of this ordcr. [n vir:u, of the undertaking given by the petitioner, any constructron it-r thc sr-tbject property is subject to the result of the suit.

¶73

Accordingly, thc u rit petitions arc disposed o[. No costs.

¶74

As a sequel thercto, t.r.risccllaneclns applications, if any,

¶75

pending in this s,rit pctir ion, sl-rall stancl closcd.

¶76

To,

¶77

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r^L( SECTION OFFICER

¶78

The Principle Secrelarv. Social Wcrtare Department. Secretariat, Telangana, The State of Telarrqani, Hvderaoac

¶79

The Additional Aoe-nt to rht Gove,nn renl Cum pro ject Otticer, l.T.D.A. Utnoor, Head Quarters Ulnoorn. Distrrct ArJrrabal-"^{"' '''"''} "

¶80

J. ,t:?5; l",tr 61 $|.Li foi,l : f; f^{* mp a n ch a ya r h, G u di h at n o o r, c u di hatnoo r,} 4 r,t 9nu 9n" 99 99^{to Sri. Kishore to} to^Sri. GP^S. for^{Chandrasekh,rr.} social Welfaie,^Roa.SC loputl Higi Advocate IOpUCI^*'" cou,1 for rhe^{rv' vvr} srate of retangana. ff,ia?"t

7 Two CD Copies

TJ SB

*!-'

i I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010412023

*!5

COMMON ORDER

W.P NO: 7254 OF 2023 AND 35733 oF 2022

¶92

DISPOSING OF THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. r-\ i\ ) ., ' .--lL\ ''-, .-.-t\ tr..).^.

Gitte Namdev v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gitte Namdev v. The State of Telangana and 5 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

Kommineni Ramaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Sapka Lingaiah and 6 Others Vs the Govt of Ap., Forest Dept., and 4 Others

A.P.State Schedule Tribes, Hyderabad. Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt.,S.W.,Hyd.,and 9 Otrs.

M/s. Seghani Agro Tech Vs The State of Telangana

M/s . Narmada Industries Vs The State of Telangana

Anil Wood Pac Industry Vs State of Telangana and 2 others