Telangana High Court
Sri A.Rugesh vs The State Of Telangana on 6 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.916 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Bidarkar Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This intra court appeal arises out of an order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely W.P.No.5266 of 2014, has been disposed of along with other writ petitions.
4. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra. 2
5. Appellants claim to be the owners and in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 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 No.2 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 land measuring Ac.1.31 guntas of Survey No.865/1 is in possession of the appellants. According to the appellants, survey was conducted and the land in Survey No.865/1 was found to be in possession of the appellants. 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 appellants in Survey No.865/1. The grievance of the appellants is that they have raised construction on the 3 land in question and the respondents, without any authority, are trying to interfere with the possession of the land of the appellants. Thereupon, the appellants approached the Court by filing the writ petition in which the following prayer was made:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby 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 more particularly trying to dispossess of the petitioners from their land measuring Ac.1.31 gts. in Sy.No.865/1, Medchal Village and Mandal, R.R.District, under the guise of laying the road through the schedule land without initiating any proceedings as illegal, null and void without following due process of law violative of Article 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and a consequently direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
6. Thus, the appellants, in substance, sought the relief of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering 4 with the possession of the appellants over the land in question.
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 petition. 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, this appeal.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had filed the writ petition 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 5 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 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 Senior Counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.
11. The contention that in the writ petition the appellants had prayed for a direction to decide the representation is factually incorrect, as we have extracted the prayer in the writ petition, 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 6 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 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 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 2 (2021) 6 SCC 771 7 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.
13. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.
14. In the result, the appeal is 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 06.08.2024 Note: Issue C.C today.
B/o.
vs