Dismissed

S. Muralidhar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2025WA/281/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court writ appeal challenging HMDA's auction-sale of a 1210 sq.yd stray bit allegedly covering a 30-feet road beside the appellant's plot. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's dismissal, holding serious disputed questions of fact are unsuited to Article 226 adjudication.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

S. Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

:<br>

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE ..--^{NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE^{HONOURABLE THE ACTIN.GCHIEF JUSTICE SUJOYPAUL} AND THE^{HONOURABLESMT JUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

¶7

WRIT APP^{AL NO;281 oF 20} 5

¶8

Writ Appeal^underclause -15^of 's6;r^{the Letters Patentpleferredagainst the Order dated} 5 ot^{zo24qn the file of the Hish court.} 1ij/ori5[^{p;.";d in w p t r"}

¶9

Between: ""'*-R

¶10

#[?l,T.1ir:{i:i3'",.i;'l'o1jn[,'fi1,,in,"$,80""H1"33'VE3ih3o"3s8ri3li"'

¶11

.,.APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 IH.e,13f,?l"l"jf,^{l'31t1,I3 8,Bl"[i:li 38 3::;.Tfi r7d' ]L'#:f 3"} ","t,,i,t, Hyderabad.

¶14

2.f heHyderabadjvtetropolitanDevelopment+n"t{i,1TOi,'"H}L"Jf E'8f^{^} - c'6m'idiioner. swarna Jayanihi complex' Ameerpt

¶15

K.Viiay^{Bharath Reddy, R/o H'N o'241'BayyaramVjllage'Pinapaka Mandal'} Bhadradri-Kothaguoem^{ijliiiili'i"tunganl-state'507 117'}

¶16

...REgPONDENTS

¶17

IA O:'l^OF 25

¶18

PetitionpnderSectignl5lCPcpraylngthatinthecircumstanqesstatedin the affidavit^{fited in supporl} "r^{ir," patil.Llinu"High Corrt mav be pleased to direct} ffi ffiiliil'i" rli-.trl" si;ir: il;^{with^resiro to the landadmeasurins1210} sq.Yds in^{Lot No 10 i" iv'-il"iliand 12S"(describedas Sy'No'26)'kacha} Gachibowli, Ranga^{Reddy5',i.iii.i,,r"tionedvide co.nfirmation-cum-allotment letter} [5]siiirirU,iiiliri*sii,v'a[":iiititii'torzzz,^{dated 01-05-2023' pendins disposal} pf the main Writ APPeal

¶19

IA NO: 20F 202t5

¶20

Between:

¶21

8;"SYj?'nlf-'i,l{?',31"^,?1[%il?,n1n?,t,f,3"fii,iunl83ili,g.-"u&,8,J.i".,

¶22

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

The State :f Te,tan Administra tion Hyderabac. irnd',?ir?,I33;3,r"i'il:;i3,$:ffi"#,,,ed,silfi f 3"",.u,,,,ur,

¶25

The Hyder,rOaO tvtg^t1ggol1tan DevetopmentA{!91ry, Rep by its Metrppotilan ^^{::rr,r.,.ner.} Swarha Jayanthi C.rpiur, nm"erpet. HyderatraO SOO biq, '^{5,,Y[?x.?l]i',r,,,i,} [o*53,{; Bis,#f ?.1i l, H,8,HT .rJ,l? 7, ;^{.' o.} i"^{H,,,n o} e ;,

¶26

...RE6PgNDENTS/R E$PONDENTq

¶27

i i[^{fJ:r,: ! J;l][?fl?:rffJ;jJ,x'} "^{n secreta ry, Beve4g s Di vis ion,} 5. The District Co,r:ctor, nrig, *"Aiy District, Office of Co,ector & District ffi^{?; :iH} fft:i,1'Jillffi^{]r# n Vi,as e, it i,-n, iit-c}

¶28

The Tahsilarlar, llerilin"gamprf f y-fr,"nOrf , Ranoa Reddy District, plot No.16, 1"t

¶29

[i"."JaTi:'i"#l;X'"1bJ[;d1';;;;;'rdffi '';;;iff^;'l'u'i'i''"

¶30

Petition und,:r St-.cti^or 1g1,cpC praying that in the circumstarlces atatqd in the affidavit filed ir suooort of the peiiti"i,,'ih" iigt, Court may be pleased to implead the^proposed Fiespondents; b b-ilr;;; a.J xespondent Nos.4 to 6 in the main Writ Appeat a,id alt other ;";;e;;;i;-;ri.rlo"ry nppti"rtion,

¶31

Qounsql for the Appellant: Ms. A SATyAStRt

¶32

Counsel fo1 fhg Resporldent No.1: Gp FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV Coqnsel for the Re:;pond:nl !tt9.?i SRt STDDHARTHA VORUGANTT REp,, FOR sRr v. NARASTMHF GouD sc ronirvrof,

¶33

Counsel for the Res;pondent No.3: _-

¶34

Coynsel for the^proposed Responde4ts: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶35

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶36

¶37

THE HON'BLE THE^{ACTINGCHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICE RENUKA YARA}

¶38

WRIT APPEAL No.281 OF 2025

¶39

JUDGMENT:^{(PerHon'ble Sm|JusticeRenukaYara)}

¶40

This is an intra-court^{appealpreferred, aggiievedby the order} d,ated. 19.02.2O25^{passed in W.P.No.36415of 2024 by the learned} Single Judge of this^{Court, wherein the appellant sought to declare} the action of respondent^{No.2 in sellingarr extent of 1210 square} yards as a stray bit in^{Lot No.1O situated in Sy'Nos} '124^{and 1'25} (described as Sy.No.26 by the^{Government) KanchaGachibowli'} Ranga Reddy District in^{favour of respondentNo.3 uide confirmation-} cum-allotment^{letter dated 01.o5.2023including the road of 30 feet} situated on the southern^{side of plot No.8 belongingto the appellant,} as arbitrary and^{illegal and to direct respondentNo'2 to leavethe} road of 30 feet situated^{on the southern side of plot No'S of the} petitioner while disposing^{of the stray bit at any pointof time in} future.

¶41

Heard Ms. A.Satyasiri,^{learned counsel for the appellantand Sri} Siddhartha Voruganti,^{learned counsel representingSri V'Narasimha} Goud, learned Standing^{Counsel for HMDA,for respondent No'2'}

¶42

The learned Single Judge^{dismissedthe writ petition primarily} on three^{grounds. The hrst ground is that the caseinvolvesserious} \

¶43

¶44

disputed questions of fact which cannot be considered in u,rit petition lrled under t\rticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 'lhe disputed questions of factr; inciude identihcation of the property i^-r Sy.Nos.124 and 125 as con1.t:nded by the appellant ald in 51 .No.26 as contended by responcle nt hlo.2, boundaries of the plots in the sale deeds, existence of a public road, etc. The second ground cited by the learned Sing. e .hrd ge for dismissing the writ petition is that there is failure to alriry 1he District Collector, Ranga Reddy Distrir:t as party to the writ petir.ior . Lastly, the contention of the u.rit pet itioner abolrt failure of reripordent No.3 to pay the complete sale ,.:onsideration within the s,tipu lated timeline is described as an lsriue between respondent No.2 rlnd respondent No.3.

¶45

Learnerl cc,trnsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge er-,rd in dismissing the writ petition on tlre ground of involvemenl. of rierious disputed questions of fact. The Hon,ble Supreme Cot rt ir-r several decisions has held that dispuled questions of fact are rrc t a bar to maintainability of the writ petitions, more so, when the facts ar: largely documentar5r and matter involvr:s public law element. Ac<:or<l ng to the appellant, there is no seriou,s or genuine factual dispu !e .rith reference to Sy.No.26 as claimed bv respondent No.2 or Sy.Nos. 721 and 125 as claimed by him. This corrl ention of the appellant is no1 tenable for the reason that not on1.1 the survey

¶46

¶47

numbers a-re^{different as claimed by the rival parties,but the very} existence of^{30 feet road on southern side of plot No'8O of the} appellant^{is also in dispute' Mere productionof documents ranging} from 1984 to^{till date will not sufhce, as contentsof said documents} have to be^{proved.There is a disputeabout the validityof the lay out} which is sanctioned^{by the Gram panchayat and the validity of the} building sartction^{accordedby GHMC' Respondent No'2 contendsthat} thyout issued^{by GramPanchayathas no validity 'Per contra'the} appellant^{contends that the disputed lay out is underthe process of} regularization^{subjectto Lay Out Regular rzatiorr Scheme (LRS)ulde} proceedings^{No. LRS} /²⁰⁷⁶ /^{G/ CG- I 1 / West Zone / GH MCI 2OO8' as said} proposal was submitted^{prior to his purchase from his erstwhile} vendor.^{The fate of said LR applicationwhich was allegedlysubmitted} in the year^{2OO4is not revealed by the appellant' Suchdisputed} questions cannot^{be decidedunder the purview of a writ petition} under Article^{226 of t]ne Constitution of India'}

¶48

There is an^{issue about non-joinderof ttre District Collector'} Ranga Reddy^{District or the Tahsildar'as held by the learnedSingle} Judge.^{To overcomethe same, the appellanthas Iiled I'A' to implead} the State^{Governmentof Telangana,District Collectorand Tahsildarof} Ranga Reddy^{District as respondents' The said application was filed}

¶49

¶50

I I I i t I I I I

¶51

belatedly anrl arraying them as parties would not factlit ate in solving the serious firctual disputes.

¶52

Accord ng to the appellant, respondent No.2 is errtrusted with the authorit. of planning and development anrl the srlid authority cannot se1l orr a roacl u,hich is existing from severar crecades for a stray bit and thzLt public cart-tract cannot be extingr-ris;hed by an administrative action. It is a point to be noted that the r,ery existence of a road is <lisp,ted by the HMDA with a serious allegation that the iay out sanctioned by Gram panchayat has no sanctitrr in the eye of law. Respon<[ent No.2 took a categorical stand that au.tioned land is a Governmen, lard and no approach road will be given to private lald lay outs. Further, it is alleged that the appellalt apprehcnds that his building perrr: issirn would be cancered if the rocar boaies are arrayecl as parties i.t'. r)istrict colector, Tahs dar and the GHMC. The appeliant rn,h le asserting existence of the road, clid not seek to estabiish thr: r;anr': by impleading the District colector, Trrhs dar a,d GHMC. The (}HMC, though not a necessary party, woulcl be a proper party to throu, light on the fact of grart of building permisriion and the existence of road on the southern side of plot No.g of the appellant. For the reasons best known to the appellant, he dirl not array them as necessary ald proper parties as respondents. Even otl.Lerwise, the existggce of p rblir: road in the alleged private lay or-rt, * hich is the

I t

".'

subject matter^{of LRS, cannot be establishedby mere pleadings of the} appellant.

¶57

7 . The appellant^{assertedthat pursuing the civil suit will cause} irreparable hardship^{to him and other owners, ald in the meantime'} respondent No.3,^{who was the successfulbidder, could proceedto take} possession and block the^{road,rendering the very relief nugatory'} This ground does not^{seem reasonableas the appellantcal always} seek interim relief^{to prevent respondentNo 3 from takingpossession} or blocking the^{road by frling appropriate application beforethe civil} Court.

¶58

The appellant^{would contend that the impugned order passedby} the learned Single^{Judge does not address the broader public interest} dimension, as a^{30 feet road is not a private right of way of the} appellant but is the^{public road for the entire lay out and that selling a} public road through^{an auctionoffends public policyand subverts the} planning framework of^{HMDA- We do not see any force in this} contention of the^{appellant,inasmuch as except the appellant' none} others have^{challengedthe sale of the piece of land by the Government} as a stray bit.

¶59

g. Lastly, the appellant^{referred to judgmentofthe Hon'ble} Supreme Court^{of India reported' irt PopatraoVgo:nkatraon Patil rt'}

¶60

¶61

Str::te of Maharashtrat, wherein it was held that writ petitions are maintainable even though the fact based controversv in'rolves patent iilegality, puklic cluty or documentary evidence sufficientlr.' establishing the right in lut,s;tion. When the appellant hirnself is c laiming right over a plot u h ich is unauthorized and which is s()ught to be regularized u'de zrforesaid proceedings dated O7.03.2O09 ,hat too from the year 200) vfiose fate is not yet revealed, the allegat ion of patent illegality on t re rart of the respondents or offence to pubiic policy does not seem tenable. In view of the foregoing discussion, w: do not hnd any reason tt i,'rterfere with the order passed by the iearned Single Judge.

¶62

In the restLlt, the Writ Appeal is dismissed Therr: sha1l be no order as to cc sls.

¶63

MiscellzLnecus applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall

¶64

stand close<1

¶65

.). '.,3,R'i^.33[i=."jil^/ //TRUE^COPY" CER )j irclou orrl

¶66

To, 1. One^{CC o [Is A SATYASIRI AdvocateTOPUC]} 2. one^{CC io St{l V NARASIMHA GoUD SC F?LftYDAtoPUCl} brv^{Hlgn cotrt for the state ot} 3. Two^{ccr; to '3P Fo- #il;i-uto} Telangarta .uu^{I I} ate of^Telanganaat renue'^{High Court} rI'Y ---^{for the St} , ly;.?uc;;|"r8[+i'*"uo""r' 5 Two^{CD Copies} KKS BS (r-

HIGH COLIRT

DATED:19 t03t2025

JUDGMEN'T

WA.No.Z81 of 2025

or' (hr sT4
-)
(
(.)
I 1t AFE M
a
j
t
a,E.ser,1; crrE0 t
-::-

¶72

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS (+ , L) 4^.5

S. Muralidhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Muralidhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md Mashuq Miya Vs the Narasampet Nagara Panchayath

Viswakavi Concept School Vs M.V.V. Raghu Babu

Kadathala Aravind Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s India Ahead News Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner ( Ct ) (Ltu )

M/s.Heavy Metal Recycling Company, Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax