THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.80 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
21.01.2008 passed in W.P.No.23949 of 2006 by the learned
Single Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/writ
petitioner preferred a writ petition against respondent Nos.3
and 4 therein/The Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, alleging that the boundary wall and its adjacent rooms of the petitioner's house bearing municipal No.3-6-369/B/38, Road No.1, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, have been illegally demolished and the property has been taken by the respondents for constructing a road. A prayer was made to restore the land to the petitioner and to pay damages. Reply was filed in the matter by the State and it was stated by the State Government that the land in question is a Government land. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The operative paragraph of the order of the learned Single Judge is as under:
"From the respective pleadings, it is clear that there is a serious dispute regarding the title of the property. Though the petitioner filed copies of the sale deed and gift deed in support of her contention that title is vested in her, her claim is seriously disputed by the respondents. As pointed out by the respondents, the petitioner, who claimed in her affidavit that her mother obtained building 2 permission for constructing the building, neither furnished the details of the same nor filed a copy of the sanctioned plan. The respondents, as noted above, specifically stated that the mother of the petitioner gave her consent in response to the notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachments Act, 1905. Though the counter- affidavit was filed as far back as 01-03-2007, no reply affidavit has been filed so far controverting the allegations contained in the counter-affidavits of respondents 3 and 4. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the extent of 299.44 square yards of land, forming part of premises bearing No.3-6-399/B/3/8, has already been taken over and used for the purpose of road widening. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy for the petitioner to claim relief, as has been done in this Writ Petition. In view of the seriously disputed issue regarding title of the property, the only appropriate remedy for the petitioner, in my considered view, is to approach the competent civil Court for adjudication of title, before claiming either restoration of the land or compensation in lieu thereof from the respondents.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed."
The learned Single Judge has dealt with the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and keeping in view the fact that the land has been taken over and used for the purpose of road widening, has not interfered in the matter specially keeping in view the disputed question of title between the parties. The State was claiming the land to be a Government land and the petitioner therein was claiming it to be a private land. The learned Single Judge has held that in case of a dispute relating to title, the appropriate remedy is to approach the civil Court.
3
In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with the liberty already granted in the matter by the learned Single Judge.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 29.11.2021 ES