Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 697 (AP)

Syed Mohammed Fayaz v. State of Telangana

2018-09-25

S.V.BHATT, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana. 2. G.O.Ms.Nos.219 and 220, both dated 22.02.2008, show that the lands in different survey numbers mentioned therein were subject matter of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Those lands were declared as surplus, and is popularly known as Bhojgutta in Asifnagar Mandal. It would appear that there were occupants/encroachers in some part of those lands. On 27.06.2007, the District Collector, Hyderabad, requested for demarcation of the surplus land to the members of various Societies and for public purposes, which are detailed in G.O.Ms.No.220. Ultimately, G.O.Ms.No.219 was issued allotting surplus land to an extent of Ac.13.00 to the District Collector, Hyderabad, for taking up Weaker Section Housing Scheme and also allotting the surplus land to an extent of 4,450.00 square meters to the District Collector, Hyderabad, to use as reserve and to be used after detailed survey. G.O.Ms.No.220 was issued by the Government allotting surplus land to an extent of Ac.6.00 to Mustafa Hills Cooperative Housing Society for considering applications already filed by the occupants/encroachers. Thus, the allotments as per G.O.Ms.Nos219 and 220 were specifically for those two purposes. This writ petition is instituted, purportedly in public interest, alleging that the tenth respondent builder, who is carrying out constructions being the successful bidder in a tender floated by the ninth respondent Telangana Housing Board, is making constructions encroaching upon the lands which are earmarked for other purposes. 3. Hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General, in the light of the pleadings, the materials on record, and the identity of the parties with reference to earlier litigations, we are constrained to record that we observe that Public Interest Litigations in relation to same parcels of Revenue and Government lands are, repeatedly, made subject matter and are placed for consideration before the Division Bench as Public Interest Litigations and also simultaneously through different writ petitions before the learned single Judges invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fallacy of the situation which we have noticed in this Court, more often than not, is that there is clear conflict in invocation of jurisdictions leading to, in all probability, conflict of orders as well as situations where the Revenue and other managers of States wealth are unable to answer to any particular jurisdiction specifically on different issues. 4. We have noticed the aforenoted situation even in the case in hand. W.P.No.12531 of 2018 was instituted by one Sri Ali Mohammed. That led to Annexure P.10 order by this Court which is, primarily, interlocutory in nature. This Court entertained a Writ Appeal as W.A.No.754 of 2018 by the State of Telangana, the Telangana Housing Board and Others against that order. That led to Annexure P.12 judgment in W.A.No.754 of 2018, wherein this Court noted the different submissions and modified the order passed by the learned single Judge directing that the survey would continue and the appellants therein, namely, the State of Telangana and the Telangana Housing Board would stand permitted to proceed with the construction of 2 BHK houses for weaker sections. The substance of this Writ Petition which is instituted as Public Interest Litigation is also about the alleged encroachment under the guise of the contract given by the Telangana Housing Board in relation to the very same area of land. The learned Additional Advocate General is not unjustified in making the submission that writ petitions relating to the same government land and Government Order as well as allotments and constructions are pending consideration in writ petitions before the learned single Judge, as per roster; even to the knowledge of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this case, which fact is not refuted before us on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, if we were to pass orders further, that will only complicate the situation. We cannot permit such serpent and mongoose game to go on by utilizing the judicial table. 5. A writ petition instituted as a Public Interest Litigation ought not to be entertained, unless the Court is satisfied that it requires to be considered in the larger public interest. We need to state, also for our guidance, that the writ Courts ought to zealously ensure that its jurisdiction is not abused under the guise of Public Interest Litigations. 5. A writ petition instituted as a Public Interest Litigation ought not to be entertained, unless the Court is satisfied that it requires to be considered in the larger public interest. We need to state, also for our guidance, that the writ Courts ought to zealously ensure that its jurisdiction is not abused under the guise of Public Interest Litigations. It is also necessary to maintain requisite whistle while entertaining Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; in particular, those instituted seeking ad interim interlocutory relief, in matters relating to land revenue and allied matters. We say this because grant of interlocutory orders or final disposal, without notice to the parties who may be affected, in matters relating to revenue and land management by the State would result in manifest injustice to the proper management of the wealth of this Nation. Though the primary responsibility of ensuring that the wealth of this Nation is properly made available for utilization for the common good is with the Government, the judiciary is also an institution of national life and is not precluded from reminding itself of the guiding beacons in Part IV of the Constitution. This will be the reasonable way of understanding the larger framework of Fundamental Rights in Part III, the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV and the Fundamental Duties of citizens in Part IV-A of the Constitution. All this, we state, here and now, since we see that the different litigations which are made with reference to revenue management, survey and identification of boundaries by invoking writ jurisdiction, including as Public Interest Litigations, do more harm than good. That is not the purpose for which the exalted jurisprudence relating to Public Interest Litigation came to be developed in this Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic and Republic of We, the People of India. 6. Having regard to the materials on record and in view of the fact that issues relating to the property in question have already gained the attention of this Court, in writ jurisdiction, including through a Writ Appeal, we see no ground to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.