Town Hall Committee vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5252 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI



HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                        WRIT APPEAL No.820 of 2021

                              (Through physical mode)

Town Hall Committee, Peruru, Regd.No.S-11/1948-49,
Rep. by its Secretary, Sri Peri Viswanath Sharma,
S/o. Late Sri Peri Annaji, Hindu, Aged about: 63 years,
Peruru, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh.
                                                       .. Appellant
       Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Registration & Stamps Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, and others.
                                                        .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Polisetty Radha Krishna Counsel for respondents 1, 2 & 5 : GP for Registration & Stamps Counsel for respondents 3 & 4 : GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.6 : Mr. P. Rajkumar

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 15.12.2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 02.12.2021

passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.8606 of 2021 filed by

the appellant herein.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner

questioning the action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in not implementing the

order dated 25.02.2021 issued by respondent No.3 and praying for a HCJ & MSM,J

consequential relief of setting aside the sale deeds Nos.1851/2021,

1852/2021 and 1853/2021 dated 08.03.2021 executed by respondent No.6.

3. Having regard to the issues involved, the learned single Judge was of

the opinion that the disputed questions of fact, particularly, with regard to

title of the writ petitioner or the sixth respondent and his capacity to pass it

on to third parties, cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Having opined so, the learned single Judge

dismissed the writ petition, however, leaving it open to the writ petitioner to

pursue its legal remedies and granting liberty to the respondents to raise all

the defences that are available to them.

4. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and in view of

the nature of relief claimed in the writ petition, we find no reason to

disagree with the reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge while

dismissing the writ petition.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits

that the appellant/writ petitioner is willing to pursue its legal remedy by filing

a civil suit and till the appellant takes recourse to that remedy, some interim

protection may be allowed in order to protect its possession over the subject

property.

6. Having regard to the controversy involved concerning the title and

possession in relation to the subject property, we are not inclined to grant

any such interim protection. However, we observe that if the appellant/writ

petitioner prefers a civil suit before the jurisdictional civil Court along with a

prayer for interim relief, the said Court shall consider such prayer for interim

relief expeditiously on its own merits. It is made clear that nothing contained

in this order or the order passed by the learned single Judge shall be

construed to be any opinion on the merits of the matter.

HCJ & MSM,J

7. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No

costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

IBL