The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the forcible disposssession of land, holding that disputes regarding title and possession are civil matters to be adjudicated by a competent civil court, not a writ petition.
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.
I I
t I I I I I I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:'13678 OF 2015
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
93
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Arlicle 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of lr,4andamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.4 to 7 herein in dispossessing thepetitioners herein, by demolishing their cattle shed and forcefully takingpossession of the land admeasuring 655 Sq. Yards falling in G.L.R. No. 285, situated at Shastri Nagar, Lal Bazar, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, without notice andpanchnama as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 1 9, 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct respondent no s 4 to 7 herein to deliver thepossession of the land admeasuring 655 Sq. Yards falling in G.L.R. No. 285, situated at Shastri Nagar, Lal Bazar, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, to the petitioners herein and also direct the respondent no.s 4 to 7 to pay damages or Rs. 10,00.0001 for their illegal and high handed action
l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 17948 OF 2015)
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 no. 3 to immediately furnish the Layout Plan of the entire 28.697 Acres of land falling in G.L.R. Sy. No. 285 of Trimulgherry Village & Mandal together with the copies of the Kasara Pahani 1954-55 and Pahanis from 1960-61 to till date to the petitioners herein
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP-NO: 17949 OF 2015)
Petilion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the respondent no. I to register the Complaint dated 20-04-2015 and investigate the same asper the provisions of lndian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code and take such necessary and appropriate action as per law.
-+rffif
l.A. NO: 3 OF 201S(WPMP. N O: 17950 OF 2015)
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 no.'s 4 to 7 herein not to change the nature of land or carryout any activity over the land admeasuring 655 Sq. yards falling in G.L.R. No. 285, situaled at Shastri Nagar, Lal Bazar, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, to the petitioners herein
l.A NO: 4 OF 2015(WPMP. No i 25274 OF 20151
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the'High Cou,t may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 4, 5 & 7 and any persons claiming through them from making any aclivity over the land or from dumping any waste material over the land admeasuring 665sq. yards falling in G.L.R No.285, situated at shastri Nagar, Lal Bazar, Thirumalagherry, Secunderebad pending the disposal of the writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. T SURYA SATTSH
Counsel for the Respondents: ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR HOME TG
Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE Ap
Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE TG
Counsel for the Respondents: SArJA SRIRAMASURYAM
The Court made the following: OROER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 13 678 of 2OLS
ORDER:
The Writ Pelirion is filed seeking following relief:-
"... to issur: o Llrit, order or direction more pantianlarlg tme in the natrLre oJ' Luit of Mandamus declartng the action oJ- the respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein in dispossessing the petihoners herein, bg demolishing their cottle shed and jorcefuttg taking pos-sessron oJ the land admeasuring 655 Sq. yards fa tng ii G.L.R.No.285, situated at Shastri Nagar, Lal Bazar, Timulglte m1, Secunderobad, uithout notice and panch utma as illego.l, arbitrary, utolotiue of pinciples of Natural Jtstice and uiolatiue oI ArTictes 14, jg, 3O0A of the Constitution. oJ Indio and con sequently direct respond.ent Nos.4 to 7 her,zin to deli.uer the possession of the land admeasuing 655 Sq. yards 'falling irr G.L.R.No.285, situated at Shasti Nigar, Lai Bazar, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad., to the petitioners herein and. also direct respondent Nos.4 to 7 to pay d.amage; @ Rs.1O,O0,OOO/ for their illegal and high lnnded action and to pass su<:h other order(s) a.s maA be deemed fit (lnd prol_,er in the circumstances of the case.,'
2
20.O4.2015, the respondents, without issuingany notice for demolition of existing cattle shed, forcefullytook possession o[ thc land and dispossessed themfrom thesubject property.It is also their case that they havetaken photographsof illegal demolition and lodged a complaint dated20.04.2015, on the frle of the Station House Ofhcer, TrimulgherryPolice Station,but so far no action has been taken. Therefore,the petitioners prayed this Courtto directthe respondent Nos.4 to7 herein to deliver the possessionof the subject property and to pay damages @Rs. 10,00,0OO/-for illegaland high handed action. Hence,the present Writ Petition'
J
confirm the prope rty,s location either in GLR Sy.No.283 or 2gS. Therelore, it is r_.lcar that the Petitioners hled the W-it petition without any suplrortit.rg evidence, falsely claiming possr:ssion and alleging illegal <lispossession. It is further stated that the contentions raiscd b1. the petitioners in this writ petition are civil disputes and thcv are required to be adjudicated in a competent civil court but not in a writ petition under Article 226 of Constituti<>n ol India and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
'*.r :1,
4
under the authority of Government of India, Ministry of Defence (DGDE), New Delhi vide lerter No.Za4 /t /L/L&C/83/Exchange dated 13.06. 1994 and Government of Andhra pradesh Revenue (ASN-lll) Deptt. Hyderabad Memo No.72718lASN_III(3)/99_29 dated 22.O8.1994 vide handing/taking over certificate dated 28.O9.1994, the possession of the land in G.L.R.Sy.No.285 has already been handed over and denied dispossession of the petitioners from subject lands.
5
Board. ln vieu' o[ tht: serious disputcs with regard to rig]rt, title, and possession of thc subject property, writ petition ,s not the appropriate remcdy to resolve Lhe inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the absence of examination of the documents relating to t_itie and possession of the respective p:rrties. The questions as to r.i.ho is the rightful owner of the land in question; whether thc petitioners are in possession of the subject property, and if so, since ,,r,hen, how, and under u,hat circumstitnces they claim to be in possession; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vrs-A-vis t he true owner, etc., are material questions that arose for consideration in this writ petition. In my view, these are pure questions of fzrct, which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, bast:d on the evidence adduced by the parties, and not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been consistently held b1, this Court and the Hon,ble Supreme Court that a regular <:ivil suit is the proper remedy for the adjudrcation of disputes relating to property rights.
"6: xxxx..... It hos repeatedlg been hetd bg this Court as also by uarious High Ooufts that a regulctr ",iir ;, ii " of,'propnot. '1teez;+ scc or
6
ii ii I I
I I i I i I I I
,/ remedA for settlement of disputesrelating to propertAights bettueen piuate persons and thot theremedA underArticle226 of the Constitution shall not be auailable exceptuhere uiolation of some statutory dutg on thepart of a statutoryauthoitg is alteged. And in such a case, theCourt tuill issueappropiate direction to the authority concemed. lfthe real gieuanceof the respondent is against the initiation of criminalproceedings, and the orders pa-ssed ond stepstakenthereon,she mustauail of the remedg under thegeneral lawincluding the Ciminal Procedure Code. The Hiqh Cou rt cannotoltou the constitutional iurisdiction to beu sed fordecidi disoutes. for uhich remedies, under theqeneral lau), civil orciminnl,are auailable. It is not intended to reqlace theordinaruremedies bu uau of a suit or application auailobleto alitiqont.The iurisdiction is s o e cial and e xtroo rdtnaru ctnd shouldnot be exercisedca.suaItu or liqhtlu." (emphasis supplied).
9 \n Duarka Prasad Aganoalo. B.D. Agarwal2,th,e Hon'bie
Supreme Court observed asfollows:
"The High CourtulhiLe exercisinga powerof judiciaL reuieuis ancerned tuith illegolity, inationalitgand procedural impropriety of on order passed bg the Stateor a stotutory authoritg.Remedg under Arttcle 226 of the Constitutionof India cannotbe inuoked forresolutionof a priuate laut disputeos contra dbtinguished fromo dispute inuoluingpublic lau.t ch.arocter.It balsotuell- settled that a witremedy i.s not auailable forresolution of a property or a title di,sPute.'
It is wetl settled law that thisCourt is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputesand come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possession ofthe parties inthe absenceof determining the validity orotherwiseof their entitlementbeing decided at the first instance.
'(2003)6 scc 230
7
I I
''.//
for granting re lief. However, if the petitioners arc so .rdvised, they are at liberly t o approach competent Civil Court and establish their rights over 1.he lands claimed by them and seek appropriate relief, in accordance ri,it.h [ari,.
Miscellancous Petitions, pending if any, shall sta11d closed.
\
STANT sD/_K. REGTSTRAMMNt An //TRUE COPY// 1\ **\
To SECTION OFFICER
Secunderabad, R"p bt1?J8fii?lf Ei3:1,,?Xt?,,Jicourt
13.One CC to Gp FOR REVI
14 one cc to SR, sAJJA J['ffiffffi:i.':,:"",:rr",
15.Two CD Copies
-/
I
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2310812024
'':'<br>;l!.1 I1)
:,t
, . ,, '-'.'r'/
ORDER
WP.No.13678 of 2015
DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION AS
WITHOUT COSTS
H
<br>v
1D
,h
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding right, title, and possession of land under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the present matter is a private law dispute suitable for a civil suit rather than writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Ramji RaghavaniaReferred¶60
Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Ramji Raghavania
Duarka Prasad Agarwal o. B.D. AgarwalReferred¶66
Duarka Prasad Agarwal o. B.D. Agarwal
S. R. Prithviraj Yadav and Ors.
State of Telangana
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
