Item No.31
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
I.A.No.1 OF 2020 IN/AND W.A.No.131 OF 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 28.12.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.13538 of 2020
filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.
2. The prayer made by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ
petitioner is for issuing a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the
respondents No.3 to 5 viz., District Collector, Mahabubabad District,
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District and Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District of dispossessing him from his land to the extent Acs.5-00 Gts in Sy.No.551/888/4, situated at Mahabubabad Revenue Village Sivar, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District, as illegal. Further, the appellant/writ petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents Nos.6 to 8, the Roads & Buildings Department of allegedly constructing a R & B Guest House, Collector's Bungalow and Fish Market on his land without following the due process of law.
3. In the impugned order, the statement of learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents No.6 to 8 has been recorded to the effect that originally, land measuring Acs.3-00 Gts in Sy.No.551/888/50 was assigned to one Yadagiri Charyulu and thereafter, it was resumed by the Government vide proceedings dated 08.06.1994, for the purposes of construction of office buildings and therefore, no land was left with the I.A.No.1 OF 2020 IN/AND W.A.No.131 OF 2021 Page 1 of 3 2 appellant/writ petitioner. Further, in the proceedings dated 24.08.2020 issued by the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal, it was recorded that the appellant/writ petitioner had sold his land in Sy.No.551/888/4 to different persons by virtue of unregistered documents and he had also admitted to the fact that land measuring Acs.3-00 Gts was allotted to the R & B Department which was not a part of his land but was situated in the land of one Laxmipathi.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1, 3-5/Revenue Department had submitted before the learned Single Judge that during an enquiry conducted by the respondent No.5/Tahsildar, sworn statements were obtained from land owners/purchasers of land in the presence of the appellant/writ petitioner showing the sale documents executed by him in their favour and the writ petitioner had also admitted that after the demise of his father, he had left the subject land uncultivated for | 20 years. The appellant/writ petitioner had also admitted to the fact that the adjacent land measuring Acs.3-00 Gts in Sy.No.551/52 was allotted to R & B office and the same was not his land, but the land belonging to Laxmipathi.
5. Noting that there were disputed questions of fact relating to ownership and possession of the land claimed by the appellant/writ petitioner at the site in question, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition holding that the said aspects could not be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the parties would have to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. I.A.No.1 OF 2020 IN/AND W.A.No.131 OF 2021 Page 2 of 3 3
6. Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner seeks to repeat the submissions that were made before the learned Single Judge which are vehemently disputed by learned counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8 stating that all the assertions made by the appellant/writ petitioner are incorrect and that the Department has not raised any construction on his land, but on the land allotted to the Government in respect whereof, the appellant/writ petitioner does not possess a title.
7. The fact that disputed questions of fact have been raised by the appellant/writ petitioner is apparent from the stand taken by the parties, as recorded in the impugned order. We see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that once disputed questions of fact have arisen, the parties ought to be relegated to seek their remedies on the civil side as the same is beyond the scope of adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. For the aforesaid reason, while upholding the impugned order, the present appeal is dismissed in limine as meritless along with the interlocutory applications.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 27.04.2021 Lrkm I.A.No.1 OF 2020 IN/AND W.A.No.131 OF 2021 Page 3 of 3