Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Telangana High Court
Smt Ponaganti Ramadevi vs The State Of Telangana on 1 May, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.12382, 20090, 20230, 24487 of 2020;
17745, 24898 of 2021; 46173, 46210, 46269 of 2022;
1963, 2057, 2070, 23808, 23821, 23823, 23824, 23826, 23835,
23855, 23863, 23875, 23898, 23900, 28215, 28246, 28270,
28273, 28314 and 29088 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is intrinsically interconnected, they are being taken up and heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, these cases have been divided into two batches i.e, first batch and second batch.
2. The first batch of cases i.e., W.P.Nos.28215, 23808, 23821, 23823, 23824, 23826, 23835, 23855, 23863, 23875, 23898, 23900, 28246, 28270, 28273, 28314, and 29088 of 2023 are filed questioning the action of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality in rejecting the Building Permission applications submitted by the petitioners, who have purchased the plots in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B, situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial, under layout in LP No.42/78.
3. The second batch of cases i.e, W.P.Nos.12382, 20090, 20230, 24487 of 2020; 17745, 24898 of 2021; 46173, 46210, 46269 of 2022; 1963, 2057 and 2070 of 2023 are filed challenging the releasing of layout in LP 42/78, dated 06.06.2014 for the lands 2 situated in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial.
4. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are stated as under:
5. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch (first batch of writ petitions) is that they have purchased various extents of plots from Umar Miya Colony House Building Society (hereinafter called as "Society") under various registered sale deeds and their vendor-Society, which is registered vide Regd.No.TM 406, in turn purchased the property from pattedar S.A. Hameed, whose name is recorded as Pattedar in the revenue records for the lands admeasuring Ac.12.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B, situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. The further case of the petitioners is that the pattedar has applied for a layout plan for the above said land and thereafter, divided the same into 86 plots including roads, open spaces etc,. The layout submitted by the original Pattedar S.A.Hameed was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred as "DTCP") vide proceedings dated 21.10.1978 subject to payment of conversion fee and security deposit as required under Sections 184 and 185 of Municipalities Act. The case of the petitioners is that said Pattedar failed to remit the revenue arrears and for realization of the 3 arrears, the said lands were auctioned. In the auction conducted by the revenue authorities, the Society and three others have purchased the said property. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal vide proceedings dated 12.03.1979, confirmed the auction conducted for the said property. It is also case of the petitioners that when the title and possession of the Society has been disputed by the protected tenants, the Society was constrained to file a civil suit vide O.S.No.165 of 1981 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet, seeking injunction and the same was decreed in favour of the Society vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.1983. It is further case of the petitioners that the protected tenants surrendered their tenancy rights orally and delivered possession of the lands to the pattedar S.A.Hameed. It is alleged by the petitioners that they have purchased the plots of various extents in the layout approved by DTCP, vide layout in LP No.42/78. It is their further case that Society has submitted a representation to the Municipal Commissioner, for depositing the requisite fee and development charges for release of the layout. The Municipal Commissioner vide letter dated 27.05.2006 sought clarification from the DTCP for receiving the amounts from the Society for releasing the layout in favour of the Members of the Society as well as other purchasers. The DTCP, vide proceedings dated 12.03.2007 directed the Municipal Commissioner to submit fresh proposal for change of land use subject to the condition that no 4 development shall be allowed till the Government issued confirmation orders. It is further case of the petitioners that the Society has submitted a letter dated 09.10.2007 requesting the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to permit for payment of conversion fee and security deposit and to submit fresh proposal for change of land use and also made a representation to the Tahsildar, for mutating the names of the petitioners/plot owners in the revenue records. The Tahsildar vide proceedings No.MRI-I/2007 dated 09.12.2008 directed the Village Revenue Officer, Garmilla, to mutate the names of plots owners in the revenue records. When the names of the petitioners were not incorporated in the revenue records, the Society filed W.P.No.23402 of 2014 on the file of this Court seeking implementation of the Memo No.MRI-I/2007 dated 09.12.2008 issued by the Tahsildar. It is their further case that in implementation of the interim directions, the names of the Society and the petitioners were incorporated in the revenue records. It is also their case that pending consideration of their applications for Building Permission, the Society filed W.P.No.7315/2008 seeking to direct the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality to accept the conversion fee and not to dispossess the members of the Society from the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village. This said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.10.2008 directing the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to submit fresh 5 proposal to the DTCP, subject to the Society paying all the necessary fee, development and conversion charges etc,. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, vide letter dated 26.11.2008 directed the Society to execute Registered Gift Deed in favour of the Municipality for handing over open spaces earmarked in the layout. Questioning the orders dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.7315 of 2008, Sd.Saleem claiming to be the son of original Pattedar has filed Writ Appeal No.44 of 2009 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal vide judgment dated 29.01.2009 confirming the orders of the learned Single Judge. The Society vide letter dated 15.11.2011 requested the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to accept the conversion charges and send proposal to the DTCP for release of the layout. The Society filed another W.P.No.21824 of 2013 seeking a direction to the DTCP for release of the layout for the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village. It is their further case that pending adjudication of the said writ petition, DTCP, has called for inspection report from the Regional Director, DTCP and the Regional Director, vide letter Roc.No.176/2012/WRO/W dated 21.10.2013 has submitted report. Basing on the said report, the DTCP vide letter Roc.No.1583/2012/W dated 06.01.2014 requested the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to release the layout in LP No.42/78. It is further case of the petitioners that in compliance of the letter issued by the DTCP, 6 the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality vide Roc No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 released the approved layout in LP No.42/78 for the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village in favour of Society subject to the condition that the Society at their cost shall form the roads, keep open the places shown in the layout and complete other developmental activities and in the event of failure to provide minimum basic amenities, the development charges shall be collected from the plot owners who obtain building permission as per rules.
6. While the matter stood thus, W.P.No.25633 of 2018 came to be filed by the legal heir of the original pattedar late S.A.Hameed, seeking to direct the respondents therein not to construct the overhead water tank in layout LP No.42/78 in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B situated at Garmilla Shivar, Mancherial Mandal, Mancherial District by changing the nature of land. After contest, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner therein to avail appropriate remedies available under law. Thereafter, W.P.No.12382 of 2020 came to be filed by Sd. Saleem, claiming to be son of Late S.A.Hameed, original Pattedar challenging the approval of layout in LP No.42/78 for the lands in Sy.Nos.474A and 476/B of Garmilla Village, claiming rights under registered partition deed bearing document No.3685/2002 and disputing the right and title of the 7 Society and its members (petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch). The alleged protected tenants filed W.P.Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 on the file of this Court and this Court dismissed the said writ petitions vide common order dated 19.11.2014 relegating the petitioners therein to avail the remedies before the appropriate forum. It is further case of the petitioners that legal heir of S.A.Hameed and protected tenants without establishing their right and title over the property purchased by the petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch under layout LP No.42/78 are disputing the release of the said layout basing on fabricated documents. Thus there is no illegality or irregularity in releasing the layout LP No.42/78 and ultimately, prayed for allowing the writ petitions.
7. The second batch of writ petitions i.e, W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch are filed to declare the Proceedings in Roc.No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014, of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, in transferring and releasing the layout vide L.P.No.42/78, for the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Shivar, Mancherial, in the name of Society, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 that Late S.A. Hameed was the absolute owner and possessor 8 of the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B, total admeasuring Ac.12.20 gts situated at Garmilla Shivar, Mancherial. It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 1968, the said S.A.Hameed converted the above said land into house plots and later made an application to the Director of Country and Town Planning, Hyderabad, for approval of the said layout. The said application was considered and the layout was approved vide L.P. No.42/78. In the said layout 84 plots with 100 ft., 40 ft. and 33 ft. roads, open space for park and other amenities were earmarked, and the same was implemented on ground. After death of late S.A.Hameed, the family partition took place among the family members of said S.A.Hameed and the above said land fell to the share of the petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 as per the Partition deed bearing document No.3685/2002. The petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 claims the entire extent of land covered under L.P No.42/78. It is further case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 that his brother has instituted a suit vide O.S.No.148 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Luxettipet, seeking perpetual injunction against the Umar Miya Colony Society and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2005 and since then they are in peaceful possession of the land covered under the above said layout. It is further case of the petitioner that he has sold around 25 plots to third parties and the purchasers are in peaceful possession of their 9 respective house plots. It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 2018, when the authorities made an attempt to construct a water tank in the portion earmarked in the layout LP No.42/78, he filed W.P.No.25633 of 2018 on the file of this Court. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 23.11.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law. It is further submitted that on 10.07.2020, the petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 came to know about the transfer and release of layout vide LP 42/78 in favour of the Society (respondent No.6 therein) and filed W.P.No.12382 of 2020 challenging the release of layout in favour of Society and its members and purchasers of plots in an auction conducted by the revenue department vide proceedings dated 18.03.1979. It is further case of the petitioner that when he applied for copy of the auction proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, he came to know that there is no original file No.E/459/1979, which is basis for incorporation of name of the Society and its members in the revenue records as owners and releasing of layout in their favour vide LP No.42/78. Challenging the same, the second batch i.e, W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch are filed.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, inter alia stating that layout vide LP 10 No.42/78 in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village, was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning vide proceedings dated 21.10.1978. Thereafter, the said lands were made into plots and auctioned by the Revenue Department, which was knocked down by four persons i.e., Iqbal Ahmed, Yousuf Ahmed, Azam Ali Khan, and Jameel Ahmed. The auction purchasers formed into Society known as Umar Miya Colony House Building Society, which is registered vide Regd.No.TM 406 dated 18.11.1978. It is further stated that the auction conducted by the Revenue authorities was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings in File No.E/459/1979 dated 12.03.1979. It is further submitted that protected tenants claiming rights on the auctioned property under Section 38E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, relying on some sale deeds, have instituted the suit vide O.S.No.1/2015 on the file of Additional District Judge, Mancherial, against the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality and the Society and the same is pending. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Society has instituted W.P.No.23402/2014 on the file of this Court for incorporation of their names in the revenue records. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2016. Meanwhile, the DTCP, relying upon the report of the Regional Director, has requested the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality to release the Layout LP No.42/78 vide 11 Lr.Roc.No.1583/2012/W dated 06.01.2014 and the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality released the layout vide Proceedings No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014. It is further stated that there is no illegality or irregularity in releasing the layout in favour of the Society/Petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch and prayed for dismissal of W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch (filed questioning the release of layout No.42/78).
9. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality filed a consolidated counter affidavit in W.P.No.1963 of 2023 inter alia stating that as per the records available with the office of respondent No.4, originally S.A. Hameed, was the owner of lands admeasuring Ac.6-06 gts., and Ac.6-15 gts., in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B, situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial and the said S.A. Hameed, became defaulter of forest arrears and for realization of arrears, the above lands were attached and put on sale by the authorities and since no purchaser came forward to purchase attached land, the said land was converted into residential layout so that the plots can be sold in public auction and the forest arrears defaulted by the said S.A.Hameed (Pattedar) would be recovered. The DTCP authorities approved the layout in the name of S.A. Hameed vide letter Dis.No.20836/78/D5 dated 21.10.1978 subject to collection of the conversion fee and security deposit as required under Sections 184 12 and 185 of AP Municipalities Act, 1965 and further requested to submit necessary proposal for the change of land use of the sanctioned master plan of Mancherial i.e., from agricultural use to residential use. It is submitted that the said layout vide L.P.No.42/78 was implemented and made as many as 86 house plots by leaving the roads and open spaces as per the approved layout. The residential plots in the above layout were sold by the revenue authorities i.e., the-then Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings No.E/459/79 dated 12.03.1979 by conducting public auction for recovery of forest arrears. It is submitted that since the layout approval was subject to the condition of paying of conversion fee and converting the subject land from agricultural zone to residential zone in the sanctioned master plan, the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality sent a proposal for collection of conversion fee from the Members of the Society. The Society made a representation to the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality to accord construction permission to the purchasers, who are willing to construct the houses and who are prepared to pay the layout and building charges as per rules and basing on the said representation, the-then municipal council passed a resolution dated 23.12.1985 to seek clarification from the Director of Town and Country Planning for collection of conversion charges and betterment charges. It is stated that since the Society expressed willingness to pay security deposit 13 for release of layout vide LP No.42/78, the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality addressed a letter vide Rc.No.497/P/77 dated 27.05.2006 to the DTCP seeking clarification for collection of charges. Pending consideration of the said issue, the Society filed Writ Petition No.7315 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by this Court directing the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality to send fresh proposal to the DTCP subject to the society paying necessary fee. It is further stated that respondent No.5 in W.P.No.7315 of 2008 is none other than the son of the land owner S.A. Hameed, who preferred Writ Appeal No.44 of 2009 against the orders passed in WP No.7315 of 2008 and the same was disposed of confirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7315 of 2008. The DTCP authorities after due examination of the proposals, considered and issued orders according necessary permission vide letter No.1583/2012 dated 06.01.2014 to release the layout plan No.42/1978 of Garmilla Village and accordingly the Municipal Council passed a resolution No.13 dated 05.06.2014 to release the layout plan 42/1978 as permitted by the DTCP and accordingly the impugned proceedings No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 were issued releasing the layout vide LP No.42/1978. It is further submitted that impugned proceedings were issued in the year 2014 and W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch were filed in the year 2020 without explaining the delay and there is no illegality or irregularity 14 in releasing the layout in LP No.42/78 and the same was pending only for seeking approval of conversion of land use and in fact tentative layout was already issued in the year 1978. Thereafter, plots made in the said layout were sold to various persons by way of public auction and now the land is no more agricultural land and various houses are constructed and at this length of time, the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch are disputing the title and sub-division of the land forming part of Sy.Nos.474 and 476 and questioning the layout approved for the subject land.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, in W.P.No.28215 of 2013 inter alia stating that vide Lr.No.B/223/2024, dated 05.02.2024, he directed the Tahsildar, Mancherial to submit detailed report regarding the lands in Sy.Nos.474 and 476 situated at Garmilla Village of Mancherial Mandal. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Mancherial, submitted that the total land admeasuring Ac.12-18 Gts., in Sy.No.474 and the land admeasuring Ac.11-16 Gts., in Sy.No.476 situated at Garmilla Village of Mancherial Mandal, out of which, as per Khasra Pahani for the years 1955-56, 1956-1957 and 1957-1958, the name of Abdul Hameed has been recorded as Pattedar in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.6.06gts., in Sy.No.474/A and Ac.6-15 Gts., in Sy.No.476/AA situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial Mandal and 15 continued up to 1969-1970. Further, as per the Pahani for the year 1970-1971, the name of Sri Syed Asadullah S/o. Abdul Hameed is recorded as Pattedar for the land admeasuring Ac.6-06 gts., in Sy.No.474/A and the land admeasuring Ac.6-15 Gts., in Sy.No.476/AA situated at Garmilla Village of Mancherial Mandal and continued up to 1996-1997. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that vide Proc.No.E/459/79, dated 12-03-1979, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal has issued Orders, as the S.A.Hameed became defaulter of forest arrears and auction was confirmed in favour of the purchasers namely Iqbal Ahmed, Yousuf Ahmed, Azam Ali Khan and Jameel Ahmed. The said auction proceedings were not implemented in Revenue Records. Whereas, as per Pahani for the year 2004-2005, the name of Sri Syed Asadullah was recorded as Pattedar for the lands in Sy.No.474/1 to an extent of Ac.5-21 Gts., and in Sy.No.476/1 to an extent of Ac.2-05 Gts., situated at Garmilla Village of Mancherial Mandal. It is further stated that vide Memo No. MRI-I/2007, dated 09.12.2008, the Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal has directed the Village Revenue Officer, Garmilla Village, to implement the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Proceedings No.E/459/79 dated 12.03.1979. Vide Memo No.E/4957/2009 dated 26-11-2014, the Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal has passed orders that total land admeasuring Ac.6-06 Gts., in Sy.No.474/A and the land admeasuring Ac.6-15 Gts., in 16 Sy.No.476/B, out of which the land to an extent of Ac.0-18 Gts. in Sy.No.474/A and to an extent of Ac.2.23 Gts., in Sy.No.476/B purchased by Umar Miya Colony and the same was implemented in favour of purchasers of Umar Miya Colony House Building Society, Mancherial and therefore, the said extent may be deleted. Accordingly, the Village Revenue Officer, Garmilla Village was directed to delete the above names from the Revenue records and incorporate the name of Umar Miya Colony House Building Society, Mancherial over the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B to an extent of Ac.5.18 Gts., and Ac.4.32 Gts., respectively including the roads and Open area for Society development purpose i.e., School, Temple, and Park etc. It is further stated that as seen from the Dharani Portal Pahani the lands in Sy.Nos.474 and 476 are shown as house sites/house pattas and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
11. Sri Polisetti Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch, strenuously contended that initially, in the revenue records, the lands admeasuring Ac.12-21gts in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial, were recorded in the name of S.A.Hameed as pattedar and a layout was obtained in the name of pattedar and the lands were converted into plots. For realization of 17 Forest arrears from S.A.Hameed (pattedar), the lands were accounted for revenue and auction was conducted by the revenue authorities and in the said auction, four persons i.e, Iqbal Ahmed, Yousuf Ahmed, Azam Ali Khan and Jameel Ahmed, purchased the said lands. Since the tentative layout was not released, the auction purchasers who formed Umar Miya Society, had submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, and acting on the said representation, the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, vide letter dated 27.5.2006 sought clarification from the Director of Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad (DTCP), whether to collect fees from the Members of the Society. The DTCP, vide proceedings dated 12.3.2007 directed the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to submit fresh proposal for change of land use subject to the condition that no development shall be allowed till the Government issued Confirmation Orders. Thereafter, the Society filed WP No.7315/2008 on the file of this Court seeking to declare the action of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, in not accepting the conversion fee from the members of the Society and also the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, in trying to dispossess the members of the Society from the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village, Mancherial, without issuing any notice, as illegal. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2008 directing the 18 Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to send fresh proposal to the DTCP, subject to Society paying all the necessary fees, development and conversion charges etc. It is further contended that the alleged protected tenants who claimed the rights over the property filed Writ Petition Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 on the file of this Court and the same were dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2014. At present the members of Umar Miya Colony House Building Society, who purchased the plots from the auction purchasers are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. It is further submitted that petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch are not having any right or title over the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B and they have no locus to dispute the right and title of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28215 of 2023 and batch (first batch) and therefore, prayed to allow the W.P.Nos.28215 of 2023 and batch (first batch) and dismiss the W.P.Nos.12382 of 2020 and batch (second batch) filed questioning release of layout in LP No.42/78 in favour of the Society and its members.
12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality has submitted that as per the records available with the Municipality, originally S.A. Hameed, was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.6-06 Gts., and Ac.6-15 Gts., in Sy Nos.474/A and 476/B, situated at 19 Garmilla Village, the land owner was declared as defaulter for forest arrears and for realization of the arrears, the said land was disposed of in auction and the Society and others purchased the property under layout LP No.42/78. It is further submitted that the Municipality has followed the due procedure for approval of the layout and the Municipality is not having any power to decide the inter se disputes relating to title, possession, identification and classification of the land. The Society and its members have prima facie established their title over the subject property and paid requisite amounts and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in releasing the layout. It is further submitted that mere release of the layout does not confer any right and title, the parties disputing the title inter se has to approach competent Civil Court seeking declaration of their title and recovery of the possession and ultimately, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch vehemently contended that the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch, are the title holders of the lands in Sy.Nos.474 and 476/B situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial and no original records are traceable to say that the lands are sold in the auction for recovery of revenue arrears. In the absence of the original records disclosing the nature 20 of the lands, it cannot be said that the Society has purchased the lands in the auction said to have been conducted by the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that the rights of the protected tenancy over the subject property have not been finalized. In view of serious disputes relating to title, possession, extents of subject property, the Municipality is not having any power to release the layout pending from the year 1978 without considering the objections of the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch and ultimately, prayed to allow the W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch and dismiss the W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch.
14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties in these cases and also counter affidavits filed by the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality and Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial and perused the record.
15. The lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B situated at Garmilla Village were classified as patta lands and recorded in the name of S.A. Hameed, as pattedar. The said Pattedar made the said lands into plots vide LP No.42/78. The S.A.Hameed became defaulter of forest arrears and the lands stood in his name were auctioned in public auction and purchased by four persons namely Iqbal Ahmed, Yousuf Ahmed, Azam Ali Khan, proprietor of Umar Miya Colony 21 House Building Society ("Society") and Jameel Ahmed, and the same was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Proceedings No.E/459/79 dated 12.03.1979. The petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch have purchased the plots from the Society. The layout LP No.42/78 in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B was approved by the DTCP, vide proceedings dated 21.10.1978 subject to payment of conversion fee and security deposit as required under Sections 184 and 185 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. The DTCP, vide proceedings dated 12.3.2007 directed the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to submit fresh proposal for change of land use. While the matter stood thus, Society submitted a representation dated 9.10.2007 to the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, requesting to permit for payment of conversion fee and security deposit and submit fresh proposal for change of land use. When the said request was not considered, the Society filed W.P.No.7315/2008 on the file of this Court. This Court vide order dated 14.10.2008 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to submit fresh proposal to DTCP, subject to the Society paying all the necessary fee, development and conversion charges etc. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, vide letter dated 26.11.2008 directed the Society to execute Registered Gift Deed in favour of the Municipality by handing over physical possession to an extent of open space to enable them to send fresh 22 proposal for conversion of land use. Meanwhile, the alleged protected tenants also filed Writ Petition Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 seeking to declare the action of respondents in trying to dispossess them from lands admeasuring Ac.8-20 gts in Sy.No.474 of Garmilla village, Mancherial, without recourse to law, as illegal. In the said Writ Petitions, this Court vide common order dated 19.11.2014 observed that the issues sought to be canvassed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 cannot be conveniently considered and decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, dismissed the said writ petitions by leaving it open to the petitioners therein to work out the remedies available in law. The petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 who claims to be son of original Pattedar of S.A.Hameed has filed Writ Appeal No.44 of 2009 on the file of this Court questioning the orders dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.7315/2008 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal vide judgment dated 29.01.2009, allowing the appellant therein to file his objections in respect of the proposal sent by the Mancherial Municipality and also left it open to the parties to avail the remedies, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, has called for inspection report from the Regional Director, DTCP and the Regional Director, vide letter Roc.No.176/2012/W/RO/W dated 21.10.2013 has submitted report. 23 Basing on the said report, the DTCP vide letter Roc.No.1583/2012/W dated 06.01.2014 directed the Municipal Commissioner to release the layout in LP No.42/78. In compliance of the same, the Municipal Commissioner vide Roc No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 released the approved layout plan in LP No.42/78 for the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village. Thereafter, the individual plot owners who alleged to have purchased the property from the Society and as well as from Sd.Saleem, S/o. S.A.Hameed have instituted W.P.No.34829 of 2021 and batch questioning the action of the Mancherial Municipality in issuing revocation orders for cancellation of the permissions granted for the plots situated in the subject property under dispute. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide common order dated 03.04.2023 directing the Mancherial Municipality to consider the objections of all stakeholders and after giving an opportunity of hearing, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In compliance of the said order, the Mancherial Municipality has considered the objections of all the stakeholders by issuing notice vide Proceedings No.G1/989/2023 dated 07.08.2023 inter alia stating that in view of the status quo orders dated 03.04.2023 granted by this Court in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch, the permission applications of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34829 of 2021 and batch were not considered. 24
16. The petitioners in these writ petitions are claiming rights in respect of lands situated in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Shiver, Mancherial Mandal and inviting this Court to decide the question relating to right, title and possession of the subject property. In view of the serious disputes between the parties with regard to right, title and possession of the subject property, writ petition is not the remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, in the absence of examining the documents relating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to, who is the owner of the property; whether the petitioners are in possession of the subject property and, if so, from which date, how and in what circumstances, they claim to be in possession; whether their possession could be regarded as legal or not qua its real owner, etc., are some of the material questions which arose for consideration in these batch of writ petitions. These questions, in my view, are pure questions of fact, which could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
25
17. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly." (emphasis supplied).
18. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well-settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute."
19. It is settled law that the Municipal authorities are not having any authority to conduct a roving enquiry to determine the title or ownership of the property and the limited functions entrusted under the provisions of Municipalities Act, is only to consider the objections 1 (1992) 4 SCC 61 2 (2003) 6 SCC 230 26 to make a pragmatic assessment of material available on record. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality and the Director, Town and Country Planning, are not entitled to decide title dispute and possession and basing on the same, they have no power to reject the building permission on the ground of title dispute. Admittedly, the Umar Miya Colony House Building Society, filed Writ Petition No.7315 of 2008 against the Revenue authorities, Mancherial Municipality and also against the Sd.Saleem, who claimed to be son of S.A.Hameed (pattedar) and Gajelli Shankar and Gajelli Mallaiah, arraying them as respondent Nos.5 to 7. The said W.P was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2008, directing the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to send fresh proposal to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, subject to the Society paying all necessary fees, development and conversion charges etc. Questioning the orders dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.7315 of 2008, Sd.Saleem, son of the original pattedar, filed Writ Appeal No.44 of 2009 on the file of this Court and the said Writ Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2009 confirming the orders passed in W.P.No.7315 of 2008.
20. The petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch (first batch) are claiming their right and title from the Umar Miya Colony 27 House Building Society, under the layout in LP No.42/78 issued vide proceedings No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 and the said layout was released after the inspection report submitted by the Regional Director, Director of Town & Country Planning. It is also not out of place to state that W.P.Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 filed by the protected tenants were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 and the said orders attained finality. Further questioning the orders passed in W.P.No.7315/2008, the legal heir of the original pattedar has filed W.A.No.44/2009 on the file of this Court and the said Writ Appeal was disposed of by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court granting liberty to the legal heir of original pattedar to file objections. Thereafter, the legal heir of S.A.Hameed filed W.P.No.25633 of 2018 questioning the action of the Municipality in constructing overhead water tank in layout LP No.42/78 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court relegating the petitioner to avail the remedies available under law. The legal heir of the original pattedar S.A.Hameed and the protected tenants having failed to obtain orders in restraining the petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch in proceeding with the construction have filed W.P.No.12382 of 2020 for seeking cancellation of the layout in LP No.42/78. Since the building permissions sought for by the petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch were rejected only on the ground of pendency of W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch, this 28 Court after considering the chequered history relating to the subject lands, deems it appropriate to allow the W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch granting reliefs as sought for.
21. Sofaras the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch (second batch) are concerned, they are seeking cancellation of the layout in LP No.42/78 disputing the right and title of the petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch. The subject layout was released only after conducting inspection and after collecting necessary charges. Further, the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality or the Director of Town & Country Planning, are not having any power or authority, to decide the inter se disputes between the parties relating to title and possession of the subject property except satisfying themselves about the prima facie entitlement of release of the layout. Further, questioning the layout in LP No.42/1978 dated 06.06.2014, W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch came to be filed in the year 2020 nearly after six years with unreasonable delay. At this length of time, if the layout approved in the year 2014 is cancelled, the rights of innocent parties, who purchased the subject property, would be affected and the settled positions may lead to unsettle. Therefore, the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch have to agitate their rights in a properly instituted civil suit, if they are so advised. 29
22. In the result, the first batch of cases i.e, W.P.Nos.28215, 23808, 23821, 23823, 23824, 23826, 23835, 23855, 23863, 23875, 23898, 23900, 28246, 28270, 28273, 28314, and 29088 of 2023 are allowed directing the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking building permissions if their lands are forming part of approved layout in LP No.42/78 in accordance with law. The second batch of cases i.e, W.P.Nos.12382, 20090, 20230, 24487 of 2020; 17745, 24898 of 2021; 46173, 46210, 46269 of 2022; 1963, 2057 and 2070 of 2023 are disposed of relegating the petitioners to approach competent Civil Court and establish their rights over the lands claimed by them and seek appropriate relief, in accordance with law, if they are so advised. It is needless to observe that any observations made in this common order will not have any bearing over the suits, if any, being instituted claiming rights and title over the subject property.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 01.05.2024 scs