Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 514 (TS)

Gogu Venkata Ramana Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-04-30

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, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the representation dated 20-05-2024 submitted by the petitioner thereby in not conducting enquiry and restore the way to reach the agriculture lands of the petitioners is illegal arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 300A and the Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents to consider the representation dated 20-05- 2024 submitted by the petitioner and pass such order or orders which the Hon’ble court may be pleased to deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. It is stated that the petitioners are landless poor persons and as per the policy enunciated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958, petitioners were assigned lands admeasuring Acs. 1.10 guntas each in Survey No.449, situated at Chinnakaparthi Village of Chityal Mandal way back in the year 1990. It is further stated that the entire land situated in Survey No.449 to an extent of Acs. 312.17 guntas is Government land and out of the said extent, an extent of Acs. 247.13 guntas was assigned to various beneficiaries including the petitioners. It is also stated that in order to reach the fields of the petitioners, there is a way width of 24 feet which starts from their village road and connects the particular Government land and passes throughout the survey number facilitating all the beneficiaries including the petitioners and apart from it, there is a natural stream which passes through the said land. It is further stated that some of the beneficiaries in the village of the petitioners destroyed the existing way and natural stream in the passage of time and caused great inconvenience to the petitioners and other beneficiaries by restraining them to reach their respective fields. The grievance of the petitioners is that they made a representation on 20.05.2024 to the 2 nd respondent requesting to conduct enquiry in the said survey number and to restore the pathway as well as the internal nala flowing from the said lands but till date no action has been taken by the 2 nd respondent on the said representation. The grievance of the petitioners is that they made a representation on 20.05.2024 to the 2 nd respondent requesting to conduct enquiry in the said survey number and to restore the pathway as well as the internal nala flowing from the said lands but till date no action has been taken by the 2 nd respondent on the said representation. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 4. As per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the Telangana State Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, if the petitioners are violating any of the conditions of the assignment, the respondent authorities are competent to initiate appropriate action either for cancellation of the pattas or acquiring the said land by paying compensation in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the instant case, the case of the petitioners is the other assignees are interfering with the existing way and the natural stream, which is catering to the needs of the petitioners for cultivation of their lands. Therefore, as per the contentions of the petitioner itself, the Government officials are not interfering with their possession nor initiated any action under the provisions referred supra. The keen examination of the contents would reveal that there are inter se disputes among the assignees with regard to encroachment of the land or disturbing the existing pathway and natural stream. 5. Admittedly, the State authorities have not initiated any action for cancellation of the assignments and consequential resumption of the lands. When there are inter se disputes among the parties, the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the disputes relating to right, title, and possession of the subject property. 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. 6. 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 (1992) 4 SCC 61 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). 7. 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.” 8. 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.” 8. 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 by competent Court. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.