Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1380 (AP)

District Collector, R. R. Dist. v. G. Dayakar

2002-11-28

DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK

body2002
DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THE three Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents in W. P. Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 against the common order dt. 17-8-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court allowing those two writ petitions. W. P. No. 20530 of 2002 is filed by five petitioners therein requesting this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct survey by the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and land Records, Hyderabad, of the land in S. No. 67 of Madhapur village, serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy district with reference to the land possessed by the petitioners and also the land held by the 3rd respondent. As common questions of law and facts arise in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition, we are disposing of the writ appeals as well as the writ petition by a common order. ( 2 ) THE Government is the owner of the land situated in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga reddy District. In or about the year 1992 the government allotted about Ac. 45-00 of its land in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village to shilparamam and inducted the later into possession of the said land. The adjoining land in Sy. No. 67 appears to be a private land. The petitioners in W. P. No. 7364 of 2000 claimed that part of the land in sy. No. 67 with an extent of about Ac. 1-36 guntas of land was divided into 16 plots and sold to different individuals from time to time under separate registered sale deeds. They further claimed that they are the owners of plot Nos. 1,2,14 and 16 of the said layout. According to them on 5-10-1997 mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally mandal, with the help of the police demolished the compound walls and houses of the petitioners in spite of objection by the petitioners. Challenging the so called high handed action of the respondents, previously they filed W. P. No. 26012 of 1997 on 6-10-1997 seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in allegedly interfering with the possession and ownership of petitioners land in plot nos. 1, 2, 12 to 15 in Sy. No. 67 (part), madhapur village as arbitrary, illegal and void and for a consequent order of restraint against the respondents. 1, 2, 12 to 15 in Sy. No. 67 (part), madhapur village as arbitrary, illegal and void and for a consequent order of restraint against the respondents. The said writ petition was opposed by the present appellants. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 10-06-1999. The direction by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition is as follows:"under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Regional Deputy Director, survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, shall conduct the resurvey of the land in Survey No. 67 with reference to the land possessed by the petitioners and also the land held by Shilparamam after giving notice to the petitioners, 4th respondent - Shilparamam and record the findings thereon. This exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of the order shall be forwarded to the regional Deputy Director, S and L. R. , hyderabad". ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to the said direction, Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land records, according to the writ petitioners, conducted survey operations and made demarcations and the plans and found that plot Nos. 1, 2,12,14,15 and part of 16 are located in Sy. No. 67 and also found the existing fence lying in Sy. No. 67 and not in sy. No. 64. Alleging that the respondents did not implement the report of Regional deputy Director, the petitioners in W. P. No. 26012 of 1997 filed W. P. No. 7364 of 2000 seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act and implement the findings recorded by the regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land records, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the directions of this Court in W. P. No. 26012 of 1997 dated 10-06-1999 in respect of plot nos. 1, 2, 14 and 16 of Sy. No. 67 of madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, ranga Reddy District. The two petitioners in w. P. NO. 10308 of 2000 sought a similar relief regarding plot Nos. 12, 13 and 15. The respondents contested both the writ petitions. Inter alia the respondents pleaded that Regional Deputy Director did not complete the survey and demarcation operations in the disputed lands. No. 67 of madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, ranga Reddy District. The two petitioners in w. P. NO. 10308 of 2000 sought a similar relief regarding plot Nos. 12, 13 and 15. The respondents contested both the writ petitions. Inter alia the respondents pleaded that Regional Deputy Director did not complete the survey and demarcation operations in the disputed lands. They also contended that the respondents preferred a statutory appeal before the Special commissioner and Director of Survey, settlement and Land Records at Hyderabad and obtained interim orders suspending the report of Regional Deputy Director of survey and Land Records. The said appeal is still pending. These two writ petitions came up for hearing before the same learned judge who disposed of the earlier writ in w. P. NO. 26012 of 1997. He disposed of both the writ petitions by a common order dated 17-08-2001. Regarding the appeal pending before the appellate authority, the learned single Judge opined that the report of the regional Deputy Director is in pursuance of the directions of this court and therefore no appeal could be filed and even if any appeal is filed, it has to be ignored for all practical purposes. He was of the opinion that the order of the Regional Deputy Director should be implemented in its totality so as to eliminate any boundary disputes between the parties. He declared that appeal pending on the file of the Special Commissioner - director of Survey, Settlement and Land records is incompetent and without jurisdiction. He held that the report of the regional Deputy Director is binding on the parties. Accordingly he allowed both the writ petitions and directed the Regional deputy Director, Survey and Land Records to earmark the boundary as per his report dated 7-2-2000 and plan annexed thereto in the presence of respondents 2 and 4 and accordingly the respective parties shall protect their boundaries without any further dispute among themselves. He also directed that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above three appeals are filed by the respondents in the above two writ petitions. He also directed that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above three appeals are filed by the respondents in the above two writ petitions. ( 4 ) WHILE the three appeals are pending before this court, the petitioners in W. P. No. 20530 of 2002 filed the writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct survey by the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and land Records, Hyderabad, of the land in Sy. No. 67 of Madhapur village, serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district with reference to the land possessed by the petitioners and also the land held by respondent No. 3. It is alleged in the writ petition that on 1-10-2002 the Special Officer, shilparamam, interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the land in possession of the writ petitioners on the ground that the land purchased and possessed by the petitioners is the land allotted to the shilparamam. The said writ petition was filed on 10-10-2002. The disputed land of the petitioners is said to be located in Sy. No. 67 of Madhapur village. The petitioners referred to the orders of the learned Single judge in W. P. No. 26012 of 1997 as well as in w. P. Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 and wanted a similar relief to be granted to them also. This writ petition is opposed by the respondents. ( 5 ) THERE is a boundary dispute raised by the writ petitioners. They claimed that their plots are in Sy. No. 67 of Madhapur village and on the other hand the respondents assert that the plots of the petitioners are located in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village. There is no dispute by the writ petitioners that the land in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village is Government land and it is allotted to Shilparamam by the Government. Therefore, the question raised by the petitioners relates to a boundary dispute. It is purely a civil dispute. No. 64 of Madhapur village. There is no dispute by the writ petitioners that the land in Sy. No. 64 of Madhapur village is Government land and it is allotted to Shilparamam by the Government. Therefore, the question raised by the petitioners relates to a boundary dispute. It is purely a civil dispute. In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in T. Praveena v. District collector, Hyderabad, dealing with a writ petition filed with regard to determination of boundary between petitioners land and the land of the respondents alleging encroachment, held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be used for the said purpose and appropriate remedy for settlement of such disputes is filing of a regular suit. It was further held that disputes relating to property rights between private persons cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the parties have to seek remedies under general law in Civil Courts. We are entirely in agreement with the above principles of law laid down by a co-ordinate bench of this court. In view of the said decision, it is clear that all the three writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IF there is any boundary dispute, the affected parties can have recourse to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short the act ). As per Section 10 of the Act where boundary is disputed, the Survey Officer, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, shall determine the boundary and record in writing the reasons for his decision. Section 9 of the Act deals with determination of an undisputed boundary. Section 10 deals with determination of a disputed boundary. Section 11 of the Act provides for preferring an appeal by any person affected by a decision under Sec. 9 or 10. Section 14 of the Act is also one of the important provisions. Section 9 of the Act deals with determination of an undisputed boundary. Section 10 deals with determination of a disputed boundary. Section 11 of the Act provides for preferring an appeal by any person affected by a decision under Sec. 9 or 10. Section 14 of the Act is also one of the important provisions. It lays down that any person deeming himself aggrieved by the determination of any boundary under section 9, 10 or 11, may, subject to the provisions of Part II and III of the Indian limitation Act, institute a suit within three years from the date of notification under section 13 to set aside or modify the said determination and the survey shall, if necessary, be altered in accordance with the final decree in the suit and the alternations, if any, shall be noted in the record. Without having recourse to the statutory provisions in the Act, the writ petitioners straightaway approached this court requesting this Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and grant directions to implement the report of the regional Deputy Director of Survey and land Records. In the earlier writ petition in w. P. No. 26012 of 1997 the learned Single judge did not call for the report of the survey Officer pending disposal of the said writ petition. Therefore, in the previous writ petition, the report was not considered and no final orders are passed by the learned single Judge in pursuance of the report of the Survey Officer concerned. In fact this report came into existence after the decision in that writ petition. Only the direction given in the writ petition is directing the regional Deputy Director to conduct regular survey and determine the boundaries after giving notice to the respondents in the writ petition. If such a report is to be treated as an order passed in the writ petition itself and thus binding on the parties to the writ petition, some times such power is likely to be grossly abused by unscrupulous officials and parties and it will lead to grave injustice and hardship to the affected parties. It may lead to unforeseen complications. It may lead to unforeseen complications. We are of the opinion that under any circumstances such reports or decisions by others cannot be permitted to be treated as a final decision by the High Court exercising its powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) FOR the disposal of the writ appeals, it is not necessary to give any finding whether the statutory appeal pending before the commissioner, Survey, Settlement and land Records, Hyderabad, is maintainable or not. We do not like to express our opinion regarding the maintainability of the statutory appeal pending before the commissioner against the report of the regional Deputy Director. The present writ petitioners are the parties to the statutory appeal pending before the Commissioner. It is open for them to contend before the commissioner that no appeal lies against the report of the Regional Deputy Director on the ground that the said survey was conducted in pursuance of an order in the writ petition and not on a petition filed by any of the parties. ( 8 ) A perusal of the material available on record clearly indicates that the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in w. P. Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 is contra to the earlier orders passed by the same learned Single Judge. After the Regional deputy Director gave his report in pursuance of the directions in W. P. No. 26012 of 1997, the petitioners in that writ petition filed W. P. M. P. No. 8210 of 2000 seeking a clarification of the order dated 10-06-1999 passed in the said writ petition and directing the respondents to implement the orders of the Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records in order to do complete justice to the parties. The same learned Single Judge passed the following order on 17-04-2001 dismissing the above said petition. "it is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance of the directions granted by this court, the survey was conducted and in the survey it was held that the fourth respondent - Shilparamam is occupying the land belonging to the petitioners, therefore he seeks appropriate directions to ensure that the land occupied by Shilparamam should be handed over. I am unable to accept this contention. The clarification as sought for by the petitioners is beyond the scope of the writ petition. I am unable to accept this contention. The clarification as sought for by the petitioners is beyond the scope of the writ petition. In the writ petition it was only directed that the land should be surveyed by the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records. It is for the petitioners to take appropriate action if the respondents are holding the land which belongs to the petitioners, but this court cannot direct to put the petitioners in the land which was bound to be in possession of the respondents. Under these circumstances, no orders are necessary on this petition. However, it is left open to the petitioners to take appropriate action in pursuance of the report of the survey authorities". Therefore, even according to the learned single Judge the report of the Regional deputy Director cannot be treated as an order passed in the writ petition and the only recourse left to the parties concerned is to take appropriate action in pursuance of the said report. The present impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite contra to his earlier opinion expressed in w. P. M. P. No. 8210 of 2000 regarding the nature and scope of the order passed by him in W. P. No. 26012 of 1997. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court, referred to above, we hold that the only remedy or course left for the parties in the present writ petitions is only by filing a regular civil suit to establish their title and right in the disputed property and seek appropriate reliefs. The relief asked for in the present writ petitions by the writ petitioners cannot be granted by this court while exercising its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in the two writ petitions. Therefore, the writ appeals deserve to be allowed and those two writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. For similar reasons, W. P. No. 20530 of 2002 is also liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) IN the result, W. A. No. 1646,1647 and 1760 of 2001 are allowed and the common order dated 17-8-2001 passed in W. P. Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 is set aside. Those two writ petitions as well as W. P. No. 20530 of 2002 are dismissed. ( 9 ) IN the result, W. A. No. 1646,1647 and 1760 of 2001 are allowed and the common order dated 17-8-2001 passed in W. P. Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000 is set aside. Those two writ petitions as well as W. P. No. 20530 of 2002 are dismissed. The commissioner, Survey, Settlement and land Records, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the said appeal pending before him on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order unmindful of any of the observations made by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 7364 and 10308 of 2000. No order as to costs.