Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 703 (TS)

G. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. State of Telangana

2020-09-28

SHAMEEM AKTHER

body2020
ORDER : This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, wherein the following prayer is made : “….to issue a writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in particular the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents in encroaching and illegally occupying Ac.0.07 gts of petitioners property situated at Sy.No.26 of total extent of Ac.0.26gts situated at Gajwel Town, Siddipet District and not considering representations dt.28.07.2020 and 30.07.2020 of the Petitioners to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Petitioners fundamental rights under Article 14, 21 and 300A and constitutional rights of the Petitioners and to consequently, direct the respondents in particular 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents to forthwith vacate Ac.0.07 gts (Phaiki) in Sy.No.26 situated at Gajwel Town, Siddipet District, Telangana State and pass such other orders…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are the owners and possessors of house and inner court yard admeasuring Ac.0.17gts and outer court yard admeasuring Ac.0.09gts, total admeasuring Ac.0.26 gts in Sy.No.26 situated at Gajwel Town, Siddipet District, and they acquired the same from their grandmother Smt. Gandhari Manik Bai. It is submitted that land admeasuring Ac.0.02gts in Sy.No.26 was given for construction for Dwacra Bhavan. It is contended that the respondents without there being any right, title or interest over the subject property, are trying to encroach the outer court yard admeasuring Ac.0.07gts in Sy.No.26 belonging to the petitioners for constructing Rythu Vedika. It is further contended that even though the father of the petitioners by name Gandhari Srinivas Reddy, submitted representations dated 17.11.2019 and 28.07.2020 stating that the said land belongs to Manikya Bai and requested to stop the construction work, the respondents neither responded nor stopped the illegal encroachment and development activity in Ac.0.07gts of land in Sy.No.26 and ultimately requested this Court to grant the relief as indicated above. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents filed counter and contended that the petitioners are not the owners of the subject land. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents filed counter and contended that the petitioners are not the owners of the subject land. It is submitted that on localization of subject property, out of total land admeasuring Ac.0.17gts in Sy.No.26(peradu), it was found that land in an extent of Ac.0.08gts was covered with Police Station, which was constructed 40 years ago and the said building became defunct. Thereafter, as per the instructions of 2nd respondent-District Collector, the dilapidated police station was identified for the purpose of constructing Rythu Vedika and accordingly, the possession of the said building including appurtenant land admeasuring Ac.0.07gts in Sy.No.26 was handed over to Agriculture Department vide panchanama dated 21.07.2020. Furthermore, in an extent of Ac.0-01 gunta, there is an Anganwadi Building, which was constructed two years ago and in an extent of Ac.0.02 gts, Dwacra building was constructed, donated by the Land Owners and the remaining extent of Ac.0-07gts is open vacant land which is adjacent to Gramakantam land vested in the State and the petitioners cannot claim the same. It is contended that the representations dated 17.11.2019 and 28.07.2020 submitted by the petitioners father Sri G. Srinivas Reddy, were examined and it was informed to him that the subject land was allotted to Rythu Vedika from the old police station building and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents without any right, title or interest, are trying to encroach into the petitioners land admeasuring Ac.0-07gts in Sy.No.26 situated at Gajwel Town, Siddipet District and illegally constructing Rythu Vedika. Whereas the contention of the respondents is that as per Sethwar Sy.No.26 (peradu), land admeasuring Ac.0.17gts stands patta in the names of Ramreddy Desai (Ac.0.08gts) and Uma Reddy Desai (Ac.0.09gts). As per Chessala Pahanis for the years 1955-58 and 1960-61, said Uma Reddy Desai and Ram Reddy Desai are shown as pattedars and the Manikya Bai is shown as enjoyer. From the year 1977-78 onwards to 2010-11, in pattadar column, the name of Manikya Bai and Dasthagartha was recorded and in enjoyer column, Police Station and Abadi was recorded. In view of rapid urbanization and formation of Gajwel Municipality and the change of nature of lands Abadi, the pahanies were not maintained for Sy.No.26 from 2011 onwards. 6. From the year 1977-78 onwards to 2010-11, in pattadar column, the name of Manikya Bai and Dasthagartha was recorded and in enjoyer column, Police Station and Abadi was recorded. In view of rapid urbanization and formation of Gajwel Municipality and the change of nature of lands Abadi, the pahanies were not maintained for Sy.No.26 from 2011 onwards. 6. As seen from the material placed on record, there is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the petitioners over the land admeasuring Ac.0-07gts in Sy.No.26 situated at Gajwel Town, Siddipet District. Since the subject land was declared as Abadi, the pahanies were not maintained for the land in Sy.No.26 from 2011 onwards. Therefore, there are no latest documents to demonstrate the possession as well as title of the petitioners over the land in dispute. It is apt to state that the contentions and issues raised before this Court are required to be examined by the competent Civil Court, where documents are required to be examined and evidence is required to be recorded. Thereafter a finding is required to be given whether the petitioners are having title and possession over the land in question. These aspects cannot be adverted to/answered by this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that if, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complicated questions of fact which require a regular and full-fledged trial are involved, it is but prudent that the Court should refrain itself from entertaining such petition and relegate the party to the normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit. In the given circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought by them in this Writ Petition. However, the petitioners are entitled to work out the remedies available to them under law, before the competent Civil Court. 7. The other contention of the petitioners is that though the petitioners father Sri G. Srinivas Reddy, submitted representations dated 17.11.2019 and 28.07.2020, the respondents neither responded nor stopped the construction work. It has been submitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit that pursuant to the said representations, the Revenue records were verified and the petitioners father was informed that the land in question was allotted for construction of Rythu Vedika. It has been submitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit that pursuant to the said representations, the Revenue records were verified and the petitioners father was informed that the land in question was allotted for construction of Rythu Vedika. Furthermore, the respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, acted on the representation dated 28.07.2020 submitted by the petitioners father and directed the respondent No.5-Mandal Revenue Officer, to submit a report and accordingly, the respondent No.5 furnished a detailed report vide letter dated 22.08.2020. Since the father of the petitioner was informed about allotment of disputed land for construction of Rythu Vedika and as the respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer, has already acted upon the representation dated 28.07.2020, no purpose would be served to direct the official respondents to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioners father. This Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.