Dismissed

M.D.Aleemuddin alias Shaik Aleemuddin And 2 Others v. The State of Telangana And 11 Others

Telangana HC16 Oct 2024WP/1613/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposes of a writ petition challenging a No Objection Certificate issued for a fuel retail outlet and a contempt case for alleged violation of an injunction. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the parties to pursue the pending civil suit for title determination, and closed the contempt case accordingly.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue the pending civil suit for title determination; contempt case closed.

M.D.Aleemuddin alias Shaik Aleemuddin And 2 Others Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1613 OF^{2023 AND CONTEMPTcAsE NO.794 0F 2023}

¶7

W.P.No.1613 ot'2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Ivl.D.Aleemuddin alias Shaik^{Aleemuddin,S/o. Shaik Sirajuddin,Age 64} years, Occ. Agriculture, H.No-1-1-438,^{Rakasipet,Bodhan,Nizamabad} District.

¶10

2 Shaik Kazim Saif, S/o.^{ShaikAleemuddin, Age 2$ years, Occ. Agriculture,} R/o. H.No.'l-1-438, Rakagipet,^{Bodhan, NizamabadDistrict.}

¶11

3 Shaik Alsam Saqlain,^{S/q. Shaik Aleemuddin, Age. 2-3 years, Occ.Agriculture,} R/o. H.No.1-1-438, Rakasipet,^{Bodhan,'NizamabadDistrict.}

¶12

.....PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Tglangana, Rep,^{by its PrincipalSecretary, Revenue} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary' Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Collector, Nizamabad^{District at Nizamabad.}

¶17

The Commissioner of^{Police and Addl. District MaEistrate'Nizamabad,} Nizamabad District.

¶18

The Assistant^{commissioner of Police, Bodhan Division, Nizamabad District}

¶19

fhe Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Bodhan, NizamabadDistrtct}

¶20

The Bodhan Municipality,^{Bodhan, Nizamabad District, Rep. by its} Commissioner.

¶21

B. The Superintending^{Engineer (R and B), Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad,} Nizamabad District.

¶22

The Executive Engineer^{(R andB), Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad'} Nizamabad District.

¶23

¶24

Hindustan^{Petroleum CorporationLimrted, 9-1-130/1 , SebastianStreet,} - Sirolini Devi Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad' Rep by its Regional lVla nager

¶25

1 1 Hindustan^{Petroleum Corporation Limited, 9-1-1 30/1, SebastianStreet,} Sarojini Devi Road,^{Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Sales Manager.}

¶26

12.M.A. Fassi, S/o^{lvl A. Majeed,Age.49years,Occ. Agriculture,R/o H.No.1-'1-} 55212, Rakasipet Bodhan.^{Nrzamabad District.}

¶27

.....RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition Under Article^{226 of lhe Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewrth,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ. Order or^{Dlrection, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus} by declaring the action of^{the 4th respondent in issuing the No- Objection} Certificate vide^{proceedings No G2 - 46/NOC- PP - 07/CP - NZB1202?' dated} 1611112022 in favour of Respondents^{10 and 11 for installation of class-Aand} Class-B Petrol and Diesel Retail^{Outletin the land in Sy.No585/lUU,5Q!/lEand} 584/E, situated at Bellal^{Tarfa Village, Bodhan Mandal and Municipality,} Nizambad District,.;ust basing on^{the false reports submitted by the ResBondents} 5 to 9, withoul even^{rdentifyrng the proposed site, valid sanctioned layout, without} recordrng the statements of the^{adlacent land owners and withoutevgn} conducting survey, though^{the dispute is pendingsince 20 19 and thqugh the} inlunction^{grantedin favour of the petitioners in 1.A.No.636ot 2022tn O S,No?20} pf 2022 on the file of Honourable Principal Junior Qivil Jqdge at^{Bpdhan is} existing, rs nothing^{but illegal arbitrary, abuse} 9f^{process of law, violation of} prrnciplqs of natural^justrce and contrary to the rules and set aqide^{the No-} objection certificate issued by the 4th^{respondentvideproceedings No G2-} 46/NOC - PP - o7ICP-N ZBl2022^{dated.16/1112022in the interestof Justice}

¶29

l.A.NOr1 OF 2023

¶30

Petition Under Sectton 151 CPC^{prayingthat ln the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} grani interim stay of all further proceedings^pursuant to the^No-objection certificate issued by the 4th respondent vide^{proceedingsNo.G2 - 46/NOC - PP -} OTtCP NZBI2O22, dated 16t11t2022, in the interest^{of justice pending disposal of} the above writ^petition

¶31

¶32

¶33

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRI S'SURENDERREDDY}

¶34

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1,3 & 6 :-GP FORREVENUE}

¶35

Counsel^{for the RespondentNos.2, 4 & 5 : GP FOR HOME}

¶36

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 : GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS}

¶37

Counsel^for the^{Respondent No.7 : SRI M.RAMMOHA!!! REDDY}

¶38

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.10&1 1 : SRIT.SRINIVAS}

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.12 : -'}

¶40

c .C.NO: 794 OF 2023

¶41

Between:

¶42

M.D.Aleemuddin alias $haik^{Aleemuddin,S/o Shaik Sirajuddin,Age64} years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.^H No.1-1-438, fakasipet,^{BodhanNizamabad} District.

¶43

Shaik Kazim Saif,^{S/o. Shaik Aleemuddin, Age 25 years,Occ Agriculture,} R/o. H.No 1-'1-438,^{Rakasipet, Bodhan, Nizamabad District}

¶44

Shaik Alsam Saglain,^{S/o. SharkAleemuddin, Age. 23 years, OccAgriculture'} R/o. H.No.1 1-438, Rakasipet,^{Bodhan, NizaqabadDistrict'}

¶45

.....PETrTr0NERS

¶46

AND

¶47

1 Sri K. Yethendra^{PaulSingh, Age.Major,Occ. Regional Manager, Hindustand} Petroleum Corporation^{Limited,9-1'13011,Sebastian Street, SarojiniDevi} Secunderabad,^HYderabad.

¶48

2 Sri. Yethendra Kumar^{Koma,Age.Major,Occ, Sales Manager,Hlndustand} Petroleum Corporation Limited,^{9-'1-130/1 , Sebastian Street, Sarojini Dgvi} Road, Secundera[ad,^Hyderabad

¶49

.....6oNTEMNoRs

¶50

Petition Under sections^{10 to 12 of contempt of courts Aot 1971 praying} that in the circumstances^{stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be} pleased to summon and^punish the^{respondentsherein for their willful} disobedience of the orders^{passed by this Honourable court dated 2010112023 in} w.P.No 1613of 2023,^{undersections1o lo 12 of the contempt'sof courts Act.}

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioners^{: SRI S'SURENOERREDDY}

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents^{: SRIB.MAYURREDDY,SENIOR ADVOATE FOR} SRI K.V.RAMAN

¶53

The Court made the^{following COMMON ORDER}

¶54

1 i

¶55

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEB. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶56

WRIT PETITION No.l613^{OF 2023AND CONTEMPT CASE} No.794 OF 2023

¶57

COMMON ORDER:^(oRAL)

¶58

Since corlmon^{issueis involved in both the matters, withthe}

¶59

consent of^{both sides, they are being disposed of by this common}

¶60

order

¶61

W.P. No.l613^{of 2023:.}

¶62

This writ petition is^{filed by the petitioners seekingto} declare the action^{of respondent No.4 - the Commissioner of Police} &. Additional District^{Magistrate, Nizamabad, inissuing} No Objection Certificate^{(for short 'NOC') vrdeproceedings} No.G2-46NOC-PP-07/CP-N^{ZB 12022 datedI 6' 1 I'2022 in favour} of respondent Nos.10^{and llfor instatlation of Cllass-Aand} Class-B Petrol^{and DieselC)utlet (for short 'retail outlet') in the} land in Sur-ve1^{No.585/lULJ,585/lB and 584/E situated at Bellal} Tarla Village,^{BodhanMandal and Municipatity. Nizamabad} District, on the basis of^{falsereportsof respondent Nos'5 to 9,} without identifiring the proposed^{site, valid sanctioned layout,} without recording the statements of lljacent^{landownersand} /"

¶63

¶64

without conducting survey, despite issue being pending since 2019 and injunction order granted in favour of petitioners in l.A. No.636 of 2022 in O.S. No.220 of 2022 on the file of leamed Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan, (for short 'Trial Court') as being illegal, arbitrary .

¶65

It is submitted that originally one Mr. Ashala Linganna was the owner and pattadar of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-39 guntas in Survey No.585/EE situated at Bellal Tarfa Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. He sold the land in the said surVey number to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in favour of Mr. Mohammed Zaheeruddin under registered sale deed bearing document No.6525 of 2009 dated 28.10.2009 and sold the remaining land admeasuring Ac.0-19 guntas in favour of Mrs. Shahin Begum under registered sale deed bearing document No.6526 of 2009 dated 28.10.2009. The above two owners i.e., Mr. Mohammed Zaheeruddin and Mrs. Shahin Begum^jointly sold the total extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-39 guntas in favour of Mr. Shaik Sirajuddin, who is father of the petitioner No.l and

¶66

¶67

grandfather of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under registered^saledeed bearing documcnt No.3012 of 201 I^{dated19.05.201 I}

¶68

lt is subrnitted that subsequently father of^{petitionerNo.l} transferrcd thc subject land in favour of^{the petitioners.The} revenue authorities ntutated the land to an extent^{of Ac.0-05guntas} in Survey No.585/lAA/1/l in favour of^{petitioner No'1, Ac.0-18} guntas in Survey No.585llAAl2 in favour of^{petitioner No.2 and} Ac.O-16 guntas in Survey No.585/1AA/1/2^{in favour of petitioner} No.3. The names of the^petitioners are^{reflectedin the revenue} records and Dharani portal. They were also^{issued pattadarpass} books in their favour for the aforesaid extents.

¶69

It is submitted that respondent No.l2 who alleged to^have purchased the land towards northern side of the subject^{land, by} taking advantage ol- the same, encroached into^{the land of the} petitioners by damaging bunds. Petitioners approached the^caste elders and the Panchayat^rvas conducted^{where the elders warned} respondent No.12 to stop the illegal acts. As respondent No.12^did not stop his illegal acts, petitioners filed criminal cases against respondent No.12 in First Information Report (FIR) Nos.570 of

¶70

¶71

2022,573 of2022 and 569 of2022.^{Despite the same,respondent}

¶72

No. 12 tried to interfere with the^possession of^{the petitioners,as} such, petitioners filed O.S. No.220 of^{2022 before the Trial Court} seeking perpetual injunction restraining respondent^{No.12 from} interfering with the subject land. Petitioners^{have also filedI.A.} No.636 of 2022, wherein, ad-interim injunction order^{was granted} on 15.12.2022 restraining respondent^{No. 12 from interferingwith} the peaceful possession and enjoyment^{of the subjectlandand the} said order is continuing as on today.^{As there was violation of the} injunction order, petitioners filed I.A. No.10 of^{2023 to punish} respondent No. 12 and send him to civil imprisonment.^{Further I.A.} No.l2 of 2023 was also filed seeking a direction^{to the Station} House Officer, Bodhan Town Police Station,^{to give protection for} implementing the injunction order.

¶73

It is submitted that while things stood^{thus, petitioners came} to know that respondent Nos.10 and¹¹ are^{goingto establish a} retail outlet at Bellal Tarfa Village,^{Bodhan Mandal,Nizamabad} District, and respondent^{No. 12 submitted} an^{applicationto} respondent Nos.10 and 1l for^allotment of^{the same by showing}

¶74

))

¶75

)

¶76

the land of the petitioners which is^{situated on the road side.} Though, respondent No. l2^{does not have anylandon the road side;} by showing the land ol the^{petitioners,respondentNo. 12 has} submitted his application^{and respondentNos.10 and I I are taking} to steps to grant sanction/permission^{for establishmentof retail} outlet in their land.

¶77

7 . lt is subrnitted that earlier respondent^{No. 12 tried to interfere} with the possession of the^{petitioners, they havesubmitted} representation on 24.04.2019 to the^{revenue authorities for} conducting suruey and fixing of^{boundaries.Basing on such} application, the Mandal Surveyor^{issued a noticeto petitioners on} 24.02.2020 for conducting survey and^{fixing of boundariesbut the} same was not cornpleted even after^{lapse of two (2) years.} Subsequently, on 03.01.2023, the^{MandalSurveyor issued notice} for conducting survey on 05.01.2023, but^{evenon the said date,the} sun,ey was not conducted in^{the subject land at the instance of} respondent No.12.

¶78

It is submitted that on one hand^respondent No.l2^is obstructing the authorities from conducting survey and on the other

¶79

¶80

hand he is interlering with the possession of the petitioners. Petitioners approached respondent Nos.3 and 4 and requested them not to issue NOC for establishment of retail outlet in the land in Survey Nos.585/part and 5841part. Despite representations of the petitioners, respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to pass any orders, taking advantage of the same, respondent No.12 is levelling the subject land for construction of retail outlet. As the objections of the petitioners were nor considered, they filed W.p. No.g27 of 2023 before this Court, during the hearing of the said matter, respondents produced a copy of NOC issued by respondent No.4 on 16.11.2022.

¶81

It is submitted that as per the documents supplied to petitioners in the said writ petition, respondent No.4 addressed a letter to respondent Nos.5 to B on 26.09.2022 requesting them to submit report/remarks on the points mentioned in the letter and also to inform whether Noc can be issued for installation of retail outlet in the land. Respondent No.4 sought clarification on various issues/points, such as, verification of Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, attesting layout plan, land disputes/cases etc.

¶82

-r.-.

¶83

¶84

It is submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 9 without^conducting any spot inspection and without veriffing the^documents, submitted their report to respondent No.4.^{Respondent No.7 - the} Bodhan Municipality, Bodhan, submitted its^{report to respondent} No.4 on 18.10.2022 stating that the proposed site is abutting^{to 100} feet wide road. though the site is not abutting to the road.^That, showing the subject land of the petitioners, respondent^No.7 submitted the report without any field inspection.

¶85

It is submitted that respondent No.6 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, also submitted report on 17.10.2022 stating^that the Klrasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 is not available, though, it is very much availablc in the records. Further, respondent No.6 stated that layout plan is enclosed, however, there is no layout^plan issued by the competent authority i.e., the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, and only a location map which is given by the Mandal Surveyor is shown as layout plan without any attestation by any authorities and they failed to enclose any of the proceedings or rnaps issued by the competent authoritl, for granting the layout plan. Respondent No.6 has further stated in his report

¶86

¶87

that there is no land dispute and 1o case is pending, though, the boundary dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.12 is pending since 2019. The authorities themselves issued notices to petitioners on 24.02.2020 and 03.01.2023 for conducting survey and fixing of boundaries ofthe subject land.

¶88

It is submitted that without considering the pendency of boundary dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.l2, and without conducting physical inspection and verif ing the documents, NOC was issued by respondent No.4 for installation of Petrol and Diesel retail outlet in the subject land.

¶89

Leamed counsel for respondent No.l2 filed counter affidavit contending that respondent No.l2 is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-06 guntas in Survey No.5gsllllu, Ac.0_06 guntas in Survey No.585/lE, Ac.0_03 guntas in Survey No.585/1UU, Ac.0-16 guntas in Survey No.5g5/1F., Ac.0_22 % guntas in Survey No.584lE and Ac.0_20 guntas in. Survey No.584/E situated at Bellal Tarfa, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District, having purchased the same from the original owners under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3756 of 2016 dated

¶90

<br>

¶91

¶92

15.06.2016, 5678 of 2016 dated^{22.09.2016, 2662 of 2016 dated} 03.05.2016 and 5678 of 2016^{dated22.09.2016 respectively.}

¶93

lt is submitted that name of^{respondent No.l2was muLated} in revenue records and he^was also^{issuedpattadar passbooks in} respect of the said lands. On 14.12.2018,^{the Hindustan Petroleum} Corporation Lirnited (for short 'HPCL')^{has givenan} advertisement to establish MS/HSD^{retail outlet withinthe} municipalitl' limits of uodhan, Nizamabad^{District.Respondent} No. 12 has shown suitable piece of land^{admeasuring 25 meters} liontage X 25 meters depth in Survey Nos.585/lutl,^{585/18 and} 584/E to the petroleum authorities and^{got converted the land} admeasuring Acs.l-33 % guntas in Survey^{Nos.585/1L(J, 585/lU'} 585/lEE, 5U5/lh, 584llil2 and 584lEll^{from agriculturalto non-} agricultural use and also obtained NALA order^{fromthe Tahsildar} and Joint Strb-Registrar, Bodhan vlde^{proceedings No.2200250375} dated 04.03.2022 and also developed^{the land 25 X 25 meters} lacing to rnain road^{(Bodhan to Banswada) by dumpinggravel and} raised RCC pillars and^plated fencing.

¶94

¶95

i I i

¶96

It is submitted that IIpCL rbpresented by its Deputy General Manager has issued letter vide Ref: SRO/ASR/RE dated 09.10.2021 to respondent No.4 for grant of NOC for the proposed retail outlet. Respondent No.5 addressed a letter vide Lr.N o.222/ ACP -B /2022 dated 04. I 0.20 22 grarrting No Objection and recommending for installation of petrol and Diesel retail outlet in Survey Nos.585/lUU, 585/lE and 5g4lE situated at Bellal Tarfa, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District, to respondent No. 12.

¶97

It is submitted that respondent No.6 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.A2l735/2022 d,ated, 17.IO.2OZ2 recommending for installation of a retail outlet in the aforesaid land. Respondent No.8 - the Superintending Engineer (Roads and Buildings), Nizamabad District, addressed a letter to respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.T5lHpCLAIOC_pp/Bellal Tarfa/2022_23 dated 19.10.2022 granting NOC subject to the compliance of the conditions specified. Accordingly, respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.G2-46NOC_pp_07lCp_NZB/2022 dated 16.11.2022 has issued NOC for establishment of petrol and Diesel retail outlet. Thereafter, respondent No.l2 received license from

¶98

¶99

Joint Chief Controller of ExplosiVes SH, Secunderabad,, vide License No.P/SH/TG/14194371(P527565) dated 30.12.2022 for storing petrol in tanks in connection with pump outfit for fuelling motor conveyances

¶100

lt is submitted that petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.220 of 2022 belore the Tlial Courl seeking perpetual injunction. The Trial Courl by thc order dated 16.12.2022 has granted temporary inj unction ln favour of the petitioners in respecl of the land adtneasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in Survey No.585 llA{lll/1, Ac.O-18 guntas in Survey No.585l1AAl2 and Ac.0-16 guntas in Survey No.585/lAA/l/2 total admeasuring Ac.0-39 guntas in one compact block situated at Bellal Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. Respondent No.l2 contended that the land claimed by the petltioners in O.S. No.220 of 2022 is different from the lands in Survey Nos.585/lUU, 585/lU, 585/lEE, 585/1E, 584/El2 and 584lEll, total admeasuring Acs. l-33 /z guntas situated at Bellal Talfa, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. In the guise of ad-interim injunction orders, petitioners are trying to interfere with

{}t:."'Q...

the possession of respondent No.12 in the land proposed for setting up a retail outlet

¶105

It is submitted that respondent No. 12 lodged complaint with the Station House Officer, Bodhan police Station, who registered a case in Crime No.569 of 2022for the offences under Sections 447, 427,324 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code l g60 (IpC) and also Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 447, 427,324 and 382 read with Section 34,506 of IpC.

¶106

It is further submitted by respondent No.l2 that Mr. Shaik Sirajuddin, father of petitioner No. I is the owner of Ac.0_20 guntas in Survey No.585/EE but not Ac.0-39 guntas, and in lact the land admeasuring Ac.0-19 guntas claimed by the petitioners is not in existence and was already merged with main road (Bodhan _ Banswada) prior to purchase of vendor of Mr. Shaik Sirajuddin, father of petitioner No.1. The land in Survey No.5g5 is Acs.Z_22 guntas and in the midst of land, road was laid dividing the land into eastem and western parts. However, revenue authorities have not deleted the land admeasuring A"{-19 guntas in Survey No.5g5 which merged with the road and continued in the revenue records.

¶107

i I I I I I I I II I I I I I

¶108

¶109

Thc original orvner^{Mr. AshalaLinganna sold Ac'0-20 gutnas rn} Survey No.585/llE^{to Mr. Mohd.Zaheeruddin,underregistered} sale deed bearing^{document No.6525 of2009dated28'10'2009 and} the same time Mr.^{Mohd. Zaheruddin,purchasedanother land} admeasuring^{Ac.0-19guntas in Suwey No.585/EE on the name of} his wife, Mrs. Shahin^{Begum under registered sale deed bearing} document No.6526^{o1'2009dated 28.10.2009which in fact is not} in existence. Despite^{knowing that Ac.0-I 9 guntas is not in} existence, Mr. Mohd^{Zaheerudin by colludingwith Mrs. Kalavati,} daughter-in-law and^{Mr. Ashala Sailu, son of Mr. AshalaLinganna} got executed sale deed^{bearing document No.3012 of 2011dated} 19.05.2011 in favour^{otMr. ShaikSirajuddin, fatherof petitioner} No.1. The total land^{in Survey No.585 is Acs'2-22guntas} cornprising ol Acs.I-I7^{guntas (easternside) and Ac 0-25 guntas} (western side) divided by road^{and petitioners are having Ac'0-20} guntas, respondent No.^{12 is having Ac.0-3I guntas,Mrs'Sattemma} is having Ac.0-07^{guntas,Mr. Nagnath Rao is havingAc'0-25} guntas and main road is Ac.0-19^{guntaswhichtogether comes to} Acs.2-22 guntas. Petitioners^{misrepresented beforethe TrialCourt} and damaged RCC bearns,, pillars and fencing^{in the land ownedby}

¶110

¶111

¶112

respondent No. 12 and are also^-trying to obstruct the petrol and Diesel retail outlet work on day to day basis.

¶113

Heard Mr. S. Surender Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners, leamed Assistant Government pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.l, 3 and 6, learned Assistant Govemment pleader for Home for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5, Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7, Mr. B. May,ur Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. K. V. Raman, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. l0 and I I and Mr. M. Kiran Reddy, Ieamed counsel for respondent No. 12

¶114

It may be noted that order dated 14.02.2023 was passed by this Court in this writ petition by observing that NOC issued to respondent No. 12 and construction undertaken by respondent No. l2 for establishing retail outlet, shall be subject to outcome of the orders that may be passed in I.A. No.63 6 of 2022 and other IAs' filed by the petitioners seeking rocalisation of the suit schedule property. petitioners cha enged the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.A. No.29l of 2023. Leamed

¶115

¶116

Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal by making observations

¶117

as under:

¶118

"6. I:vidently, there is a private dispute befween appellants and respondent No. 12 vrs a vn the subject land. adjudication of which would require adducing of evidence and determination of lacts. Alrcadl, appcllanrs have instituted O.S.No.220 of 2022 which is pending. When a civil suit is pending on the same subject rnatlerl a parallel proceeding is not permissible. Writ jurisdiction is not intended fbr determination of private rights without there being any element of public interest involved; rather a view may be taken that setting up ol a Diesel or Petrol Outlet is in the public interest and interlcrence in the same by the writ Court purell' on the basis ol a private dispute may not be justified.-'

¶119

Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ad-interim injunction order has been made absolute by the Trial Court in I.A. No.636 of 2022 in O.S. No.220 of 2022. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, NOC issued to respondent No. l2 is liable to be cancelled.

¶120

Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. K. V. Raman, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.l0

¶121

¶122

¶123

and 11, contended that the allegetl land of petitioners admeasuring Ac.0-19 guntas in Survey No.5g5 was already merged in the road and not in existence. Moreover, the retail outret has started operations and the cause in this writ petition does not survive requiring any further adjudication. Respondent No.12 has established retair outlet by obtaining Noc from the concerned authorities. Further, in view of the observations made by the leamed Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.29l of 2023, dated. 14.02.2023, the parties have to be relegated to the Civil Court. If there is any violation of the injunction order, petitioners have an effective alternate remedy before the 1.rial Court by invoking provisions under Order XXXIX Rute 2,{ of the Civil Procedure Code l90g (CpC) for implementation of the injunction order.

¶124

Having regard to the rival contentions of the leamed counsel for the petitioners, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.lO and ll and leamed counsel for respondent No.12, it emerges that there are serious disputes with regard to the title and possession. It is the case of respondent No.l2 that the

¶125

¶126

¶127

land claimed by the petitioners in Survey No.5g5/part is different from the land claimed by respondent No.12 and moreover the land admeasuring Ac.0- 19 guntas in Survey No.5g5 is merged with road. Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.l0 and I l, submitted that petitioners have an effective altemate remedy under Rule I 54 of the petroleum Rules 2002 (for short^.Rulcs 2002,),ifthey are aggrieved by the issuance of NOC to respondent No. 12. Further, the retail outlet has already started functioning; any. order passed by this court during the pendency of the civil suit would cause irreparable loss to respondent No. I 2. The construction of the retail outlet and cornmencement of its activities is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶128

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is assefted that all the concerned departments have fumished their reporls granting NOC to respondent Nos.l0 and I I tbr establishing Petrol and Diesel retail outlet. The proceedings in suppor.t of the reports furnished by thc concemed authorities are annexed to the counter affi davit of respondent No.4.

¶129

¶130

; l I I

¶131

Leamed counsel fbr the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to Ex.P4 i.e., Letter addressed by respondent No.6 to respondent No.4 vzde Lr.No.A2l73512022 dated 17.10.2022 and. Ex.P5 i,e., Letter addressed by respondent No.9 to respondent No.4 vde Lr.No.DB/T4IFIPCL/NO C -pp / 2O2Z _23 dated I 5. I 0. 20 22. By referring to Ex.P4, Iearned counsel for the petitioners submitted that statement recorded in Column No.l2 i.e., Statement of the adjacent pattedars, the information furnished by respondent No.6 is "Yes recommended and no objection by the side pattedars,,. Leamed counsel contended that prima facre, such information is incorrect. Petitioners who are adjacent pattedars and neighbours were never approached by respondent No.6, thus, petitioners giving No Objection for establishment of petrol and Diesel retail outlet does not arise. Hence, the impugned proceedings of respondent No.4 is contrary to the mandatory procedure and also in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶132

The material on record discloses that the proposed site of respondent No.l2 for establishing the retail outlet was inspected

¶133

¶134

¶135

and during such inspection, no objeciions have been r-aised by the adjacent Iand owners before the revenue authorities.

¶136

As there is a serious dispute with regard to the title and possession of the land in Survey No.585/Part and considering the claim of respondent No. 12 that the land chosen for establishing the retail outlet is distinct from the property claimed by the petitioners; in the opinion of this Court, the matter requires detailed analysis of documentary and oral evidence which is realm ol' Civil law jurisdiction and needs to be decided by the Triat Court in O.S. No.220 ol'2022. Respondent No.12 has already commenced operations by setting up the retail outlet. At thiS point of time, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition as the balance of convenience weighs in favour of respondent No. I 2.

¶137

Accoldingly, the writ petition is disposed ol, granting liberty to thc petitioners to pursue the suit in O.S. No.220 of 2022 pending before the Trial Court and also avail appropriate remedy available under the Rules 2002 for challenging the NOC issued to respondent No. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶138

-l

¶139

¶140

C.C. No.794 of 2O23:.

¶141

In view of the disposal of W.P. No. 1613 of 2023, no orders

¶142

are required to be passed in this Contempt Case.

¶143

Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no

¶144

order as to costs.

¶145

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶146

pending in the writ petition and the contempt case stand closed.

¶147

SD/-T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

TI OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,^{Secretariat,Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶152

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat,^{Stateof Telangana} at Hyderabad.

¶153

The District Collector, Nizamabad District^{at Nizamabad.}

¶154

The Commissioner of Police and Addl. District^{Magistrate, Nizamabad'} Nizamabad District.

¶155

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bodhan^{Division, Nizamabad} District

¶156

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Bodhan, Nizamabad District}

¶157

7 The Commissioner, Bodhan^{Municipality, Bodhan, NizamabadDistrict,}

¶158

8 The Superintending Engineer^(R and B),^{Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad'} Nizamabad District.

¶159

The Executive Engineer^(R and B), Nizamabad^{Division,Nizamabad,} Nizamabad District.

¶160

10 The Regronal lvlanager Hindustan petroleum Co r r sebastian streer Sa"roiini ;;;;;:_,""::l.um^uoporation Limited, g_1_130/1 Duui Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabrd ' - '--' ',

¶161

i 1 rhe sates Manaqer H]| seoastia n ;;;;",trl;lio ustan Petroreum corporati-on i^ii"j, 5- r, solr

¶162

,,iru":,*I;5i,.,",iriltil"Jfi ffi t"',TlJ:KnJ;:?".""J;;,';,"

¶163

13 Two CC's to G p FOR I BUTLDTNGS' Hish court ror the state or

¶164

,, L:'::r:li'",;;.;,;l"A?t iND nrveruue, High court ror the state or reransana at

¶165

ll iff":fd"l",3,f.io*

¶166

Lc One CC to SRt S SURE

¶167

19^g::99t" eni^;;iilf ifi,iljl'iffltSate^ropUCl ll 9n"^{cc ro SRt r sRrwrvns} nJr".ri" i6d;i 19 9n"^{CCto SRt rr/ RAt\4r</sup> rv. t wo cD copies 4OHAN ngooy, Advocate (oPUc)}

SA Bs 5

I I

(].C. TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611012024

COMMON ORDER

W.P.No.1613 of²⁰²³ AND C.C.No.794 of²⁰²³

¶176

i rrr STA i 6 C,A
J+
)
ir ?025 o
() 11t1[ -L'
.<br>t-
* {)a - .,,c9

¶177

DISPOSING OF^{THE W.P}

¶178

AND CLOSING THE^C.C.

¶179

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶180

@r!o" \

M.D.Aleemuddin alias Shaik Aleemuddin And 2 Others v. The State of Telangana And 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.D.Aleemuddin alias Shaik Aleemuddin And 2 Others v. The State of Telangana And 11 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

Athram Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Sajith Shaik Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

P. Krishna Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

M.D.Aleemuddin alias Shaik Aleemuddin And 2 Others Vs Sri K. Yethendra Paul Singh And Another

Bodhi Mandal Vs The State of Telangana

Apidc -Venture Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vs Tropical Animal Genetics Pvt. Ltd.