THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No.815 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant;
Ms. Keerthi Kabra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Irrigation and Command Area Development representing
respondents No.1, 4, 5, 6 & 7; and Mr. M.Roopender, learned
Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.10.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.40348 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant as the writ petitioner had filed the related writ petition seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.372/5 which is situated at Gundlapalli Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District without issuing any ::2::
notice and following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, bad, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 19(1) (a) and 300‐A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondent Nos.4 and 6 not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner's land and not to dispose of the petitioner from her land to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.372/5 which is situated at Gundlapalli Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District without issuing any notice and without following due process of law.
4. It was contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that appellant is in peaceful possession of the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.372/5 situated at Gundlapalli Village and Mandal in Nalgonda District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter). Appellant had purchased the subject land by way of an unregistered sale deed on 15.11.2017. Earlier, one Polam Nadipi Narayana was the pattadar of the subject land, who had alienated the said land to the appellant. Notwithstanding peaceful possession of the appellant over the subject land, it was alleged that respondents No.4 to 6 were interfering with the possession of the appellant.
::3::
5. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 03.11.2022 observed that appellant's claim to the subject land is through Polam Nadipi Narayana by way of a simple sale deed. No material was filed to show that appellant is in possession of the subject land. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
6. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are electricity bills etc., which show that appellant is in possession of the subject land.
7. We are afraid we cannot go into such issues in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the appellant claims title over the subject land, it is open to her to approach the competent civil court for appropriate declaration. A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be a substitute for such a civil proceeding. Therefore, we have deliberately refrained from making any observations lest the same may be considered to be adverse to the appellant.
::4::
8. In the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to entertain the appeal.
9. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 12.12.2022 LUR