Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 434 (TS)

Reddy Ram Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-04-25

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2025
ORDER : C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION under Article 226 of Constitution of India; more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS and thereby - a) To declare the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities 3 rd & 4 th herein for not restoring the entries of our late mother and Petitioners herein, even after having purchased the said property through Regd. Sale Deed No. 1716/1988, such inaction of the Respondent Authorities 3 rd and 4 th herein being illegal, Arbitrary, unjust apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice besides being violative of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; b) Consequently, direct the Respondent Authorities 3 rd and 4 th herein to conduct immediate expeditious mutation of our name as per the Sale Deed & issue the Patta Passbooks pertaining to the Schedule Property of the Petitioner herein and pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. It is stated that the petitioners are owners and possessors of agriculture land admeasuring to an extent of Acs. 10.09 guntas in Survey Nos.354 and 357 and Acs. 3.00 guntas in part of Survey No.358, which is a barren land, situated at Pedda Koduru Village, Chinna Koduru Mandal, Siddipet District (for short, ‘the subject property’), having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1716 of 1988 dated 12.05.1988. It is further stated that the property admeasuring to an extent of Acs. 3.00 guntas forming part of Survey No.358 was originally mutated in the name of the petitioners’ mother and after death of their mother in the year 2019, the names of the petitioners have not been mutated. It is further stated that respondent Nos.4 to 6 are claiming rights over the said land by virtue of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.3176 of 1991. The grievance of the petitioners is that in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 3.00 guntas, their names were deleted from the revenue records without any proceedings and the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 were mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 3.00 guntas, their names were deleted from the revenue records without any proceedings and the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 were mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The careful examination of the contents of the affidavit would reveal that there are serious disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 with regard to nature, classification, extent and the boundaries of the subject property. The parties to this writ petition are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession of the subject property. In view of the serious disputes with regard to right, title and possession of the subject property, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the absence of examination of the documents relating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightful owner of the land in question; who is in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstances they claim to be in possession; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-à-vis the true owner, etc., are material questions that arose for consideration in this writ petition. In my view, these are pure questions of fact, which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, and not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been consistently held by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rights. 4. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.” (emphasis supplied). 5. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well- settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute.” 6. It is well settled law that this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possession of the parties in respect of the subject property in the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance. 7. In view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.