IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
****
W.P.No.10142 of 2020
Between:
Mohd. Khareem & another
Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Telangana
Rep. By its Principal Secretary
Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others.
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 14.7.2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No
_________________________
T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMRNATH GOUD
+ WRIT PETITION No.10142 OF 2020
% 14.7.2021
# Mohd. Khareem & another
Petitioners
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana
Rep. By its Principal Secretary
Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Padala Pravin Kumar
^ Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj and Rural
Development
Sri G Narender Reddy, learned
standing counsel for the gram
panchayat.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION No.10142 OF 2020
ORDER:
1 This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed assailing the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in taking action against the 6th respondent for constructing a house in the land admeasuring Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.39 of Gummadidhala village & Mandal, Sangareddy District.
2 The case of the petitioners, in brief, was that their younger paternal uncle by name Abdul Sattar Miya was Muthavali of Ashoorkhana situated at Gummadidhala village. The Government of Andhra Pradesh gifted Ac.0-13 guntas of land in Sy.No.39 of the said village in favour of said Sattar Miya. He enjoyed the said land till his death. The said Sattar Miya died issue less. It is the further case of the petitioners that the subject land was given on lease to the 6th respondent herein. The 6th respondent used to give half of the usufructs derived from the said land to Sattar Miya till his death and after his death to the petitioners herein. The second petitioner, after the demise of Sattar Miya in the year 2001, succeeded as Muthavali of Ashoorkhana. The 6th respondent used to give the usufructs to the petitioners till the year 2006. But from 2006 onwards he is not paying any single pie on the land and he was also not cultivating the land. Now, suddenly, the 6th respondent started constructing a house in the subject land. Questioning the same, the petitioners gave complaints dated 03.6.2020 and 30.6.2020 to the respondent authorities. As the respondent authorities are not taking any action against the 6th respondent the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. 3 Heard Sri P. Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Pancahyat Raj and Rural Development and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat.
4 It is pertinent to notice from the proceedings dated 15.7.2020 that Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned standing counsel for the gram panchayat concerned submitted that the petitioner has not made any complaint to the 5th respondent authority with regard to the alleged illegal construction being made to enable the said authority to look into the same and submitted the representation directly to the District Panchayat Officer-3rd respondent herein.
5 The learned standing counsel argued that the gram panchayat has more responsible works to attend rather than settling civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent and in many matters offices of the gram panchayats are being burdened with such complaints to resolve their private issues, without approaching civil Court.
6 Admittedly, this is a private litigation between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.6. It is the case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondent is constructing a house upon the land upon which the petitioner is having right and interest. According to the petitioner the said construction is also unauthorized. The petitioner has not placed on record and has not pointed out under what provision of the statute he filed a complaint / representation before the respondent authorities and their obligation to consider the representations. Since there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to deal with the representation of the petitioner, the legal right of the petitioner for the inaction of the respondents is not infringed. That basing upon the complaint / representation, if the official respondents act against the unofficial respondent No.6, it amounts to invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court having jurisdiction. It is not for the official respondents to decide right, title and interest of the parties. It is the trial court which would appreciate the evidence and decide the matter. Once the issue of right upon the property is decided, the consequential relief of construction of house upon the property of the petitioners can also be decided. Pending suit before the trial Court, the petitioner can always seek an interim relief of injunction if so advised. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy in approaching the civil Court but not involving the gram panchayat / official respondents as an arm twisting to get a relief against the unofficial respondents. Bypassing trial Court, it is not open to the petitioner to involve the gram panchayat and approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be a shortcut method in justice delivery system. Avoiding a direct relief from civil court, the petitioner cannot choose relief in an indirect way, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7 Further, the petitioner himself admitted in his affidavit that the 6th respondent got mutated his name in the revenue records as owner of the subject land. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have to challenge the mutation orders stood in favour of the 6th respondent.
8 If the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged constructions being raised by the 6th respondent, they have to make representation to the concerned gram panchayat seeking suitable action against the 6th respondent. Simply they have made representations to the 3rd respondent and filed the Writ Petition attributing inaction on the part of the gram panchayat. In such a situation, how can they expect any action from the gram panchayat without giving complaint to it is not known. So without bringing the matter into the notice of the gram panchayat, the petitioners are not expected to complain inaction to it. The petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. Hence they do not deserve the relief sought for.
9 For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 10 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date: 14.7.2021 L.R. copy be marked B/o Kvsn