Telangana High Court
Sri A.Rugesh vs The State Of Telangana on 5 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.905, 906, 907, 911, 912, 913, 917
and 918 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. B.Shashidhar, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India for the respondents No.1 to 3 in W.A.Nos.905, 906 and 917 of 2024.
Mr. L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited for the respondents No.2 to 4 in W.A.No.907 of 2024; for the respondent No.3 in W.A.No.911 of 2024; for the respondents No.2 to 5 in W.A.Nos.912 and 913 of 2024; and for the respondents No.4 and 5 in W.A.No.918 of 2024.
2
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.4 in W.A.Nos.905 and 917 of 2024.
Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondent No.6 in W.A.Nos.907, 912, 913 and 918 of 2024.
Mr. E.Venkata Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department for the respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.911 and 918 of 2024.
Mr. Ananthasen Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce and Mines & Geology Department for the respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.907, 912 and 913 of 2024.
Ms. T.V.Sudha, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority for the respondent No.2 in W.A.Nos.911 and 918 of 2024. 3
Mr. K.Ram Chandra Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. B.Jagan Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 in W.A.Nos.907, 912, 913 of 2024 and for the respondent No.3 in W.A.No.918 of 2024.
Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. K.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the respondents No.8 to 15 in W.A.Nos.907, 912, 913 of 2024; and for the respondents No.7 to 14 in W.A.No.918 of 2024.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. These intra court appeals arise out of a common order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petitions preferred by the appellants have been disposed of.
4. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra. For the facility of reference, facts from W.A.No.905 of 2024 are being referred to.
4
5. Appellant claims to be the owner and in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.0.17 guntas of Survey No.865/1 of Medchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is averred in the writ petition that the father of the appellant had purchased, vide registered sale deed, the land measuring Acs.15.22 guntas in Survey No.865 of Medchal Village. It is further averred that out of the aforesaid land, land measuring Acs.13.31 guntas was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and an award was passed on 11.11.1983. It is pleaded that the consequently land measuring Ac.1.31 guntas was left. It is averred that the land acquired by the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the land bearing Survey No.865/2, which is situated behind the land of the appellant in Survey No.865/1. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents, without any authority, are trying to interfere with the possession of the land of the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant approached the Court by filing the writ petition in which the following prayer was made:
5
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in illegally attempting to dispossess the petitioner and his family members from his land admeasuring 17 (seventeen) guntas in Survey No.865/1 of Medchal Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, without initiating acquisition proceedings and without awarding compensation in consequence thereof, required by the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act XXX of 2013, and therefore, to direct the respondents to not to dispossess the petitioner from his aforesaid land without acquiring and without awarding compensation therefore as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act XXX of 2013, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
6. Thus, the appellant, in substance, sought the relief of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellant over the land in question.
6
7. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, held that the adjudication of the lis between the parties requires adjudication of disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned Single Judge therefore disposed of the writ petitions. However, the learned Single Judge continued the interim order dated 24.02.2014 restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellants in respect of the land in question for a further period of six weeks. Hence, these appeals.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had filed the writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the representation. It is further submitted that the appellants are in possession of the land in question in Survey No.865/1, whereas the land in Survey No.865/2 has been acquired by the authorities, which is situated behind the land which is in possession of the appellants. It is therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the 7 respondents be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellants over the land in question.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.
11. The contention that in the writ petitions the appellants had prayed for a direction to decide the representation is factually incorrect, as we have extracted the prayer in one of the writ petitions, which is only for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellants over the land bearing Survey No.865/1. The appellants, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are seeking the relief of injunction. The grant of relief of injunction requires adjudication of questions of fact, namely whether the appellants are in possession of the land bearing Survey No.865/1 and whether the respondents are interfering with the possession of the appellants over the land in question. It is trite law that the questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of 8 the Constitution of India (See Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam 1). Similar view was taken in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2 and it has been held that if in case disputed questions of fact arise for determination in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to exercise the writ jurisdiction.
12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to file a suit for injunction, if so advised. Needless to state that in case the appellants file a suit for injunction, the observations made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall not operate to the prejudice of the appellants and the suit filed by the appellants shall be decided on its own merits. The interim order granted by the learned Single Judge during the course of the proceedings on 24.02.2014 is extended for a further period of six weeks to enable the appellants to file the civil suit.
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 2 (2021) 6 SCC 771 9
13. To the aforesaid extent, the common order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.
14. In the result, the appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J 05.08.2024 Note: Issue C.C today.
B/o.
vs