Chintala Ram Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 340 AP

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                    + Writ Petition No.1672 of 2022

% Dated 25-01-2022

# Chintala Ram Babu
                                                           ..... Petitioner
Versus

$ 1. The State of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat,
Amaravati & Anr.
                                                           ..Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Sri Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel

^ Counsel for respondent No.1: Learned Govt. Pleader for MA&UD

^ Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, Learned Standing Counsel for VMRDA.

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. (1976) 3 SCC 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.1672 of 2022

Between:

Chintala Ram Babu ..... Petitioner and

1. The State of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat, Amaravati & Anr.

..Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25-01-2022

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers --- may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked -Yes- to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of -Yes- the Judgment?

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.1672 OF 2022 ORDER:-

This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the action of

respondent 2 - Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development

Authority (VMRDA) in interfering with the possession of the petitioner in

respect of the land covered by plot nos.14 and 15 in an extent of 543

Sq. yards and 491.25 Sq. yards covered by Sy.No.335/5 of

Madhurawada Village, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and

consequently sought direction to the respondents not to interfere with

the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said land.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 1st

respondent and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel,

appearing for respondent 2 - VMRDA.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in question

covered by Sy.No.335/5 bearing plot Nos.14 and 15 situated in

Madhurawada Village of Visakhapatnam. The petitioner asserts that

one Alka Shroff was the owner of the said land and the said Alka Shroff

sold away the said land to the petitioner and the petitioner purchased

the same under two registered sale deeds dated 03.06.2021. It is stated

that the said Alka Shroff purchased the said two plots under the sale

deed bearing document No.910 of 1995, SRO Madhurawada, from one

Prasangi Murali Krishna on 07.05.1995 and the said Prasangi Murali

Krishna purchased the said property from one Manchukonda

Ranganayakamma under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1990.

Therefore, the petitioner asserts that after the petitioner purchased the

land from Alka Shroff under the aforesaid two registered sale deeds, the

petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and

constructed a compound wall around the said land.

Now, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that, while so, on

07.01.2022, the officials of the 2nd respondent - VMRDA visited the said

land and interfered with the possession of the petitioner by preventing

the construction activity going on at the said land. It is stated that even

the officials of the 2nd respondent tried to erect a board stating

"CAUTION This Site Belongs to VMRDA" and the petitioner resisted

them from erecting any such board. It is stated that officials of the 2nd

respondent asserted that the said site belongs to VMRDA and the

petitioner has no right over the said property. Therefore, the present

Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the aforesaid relief.

Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd

respondent - VMRDA, on written instructions, which are also produced

before this Court, would submit that the said land covered by

Sy.No.335/5, which is originally in an extent of 4.60 cents of

Madhurawada Village, was classified as AWD (Assessed Waste Dry) and

that it was assigned to one Manchukonda Ranganayakamma in the

year 1978 and as the assignee had alienated the said land to the 3rd

parties in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned lands

(Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 that the then Tahsildar of

Visakhapatnam has resumed the said land to the Government under

the provisions of the said Act and thereafter allotted the said land to the

2nd respondent on 30.12.2005. Therefore, after taking possession of the

said land by the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent has sold away

Ac.3.13 cents of the land out of the total extent of 4.60 cents to M/s

Deccan Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad in an open auction

conducted in the year 2007 and registered a sale deed in their favour on

22.11.2010 and that the said M/s Deccan Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., has

been in possession and enjoyment of the said land since 22.11.2010.

Further stated that an extent of 11 cents covered by the aforesaid

Sy.No.335/5, is covered by master plan road.

Learned Standing Counsel also would submit that the said

Prasangi Murali Krishna has no title to the property and he has no right

to form any layout in the said land and to sell the plots to the vendor of

the petitioner. So, he would pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Thus, as can be seen from the aforesaid rival contentions of both

the parties, it is evident that there has been a dispute relating to title of

the land in question covered by Sy.No.335/5 of Madhurawada Village.

The 2nd respondent asserts that it is a waste dry land and it was

originally assigned to one Manchukonda Ranganayakamma in the year

1978 and as she had alienated the said land to third party in

contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of

Transfer) Act, 1977, that the said land was resumed to the Government

by the then Tahsildar under the provisions of Act 1977 and thereafter it

was allotted to the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent sold

away part of the property to M/s Deccan Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.,

under a registered sale deed, dated 22.11.2010, whereas the petitioner

asserts that one Prasangi Murali Krishna purchased the land from one

Ranganayakamma and thereafter one Alka Shroff purchased the said

land from Prasangi Murali Krishna and the petitioner has purchased

the same from Alka Shroff under two registered sale deeds. The said

dispute relating to title of the property, which is purely a civil dispute,

cannot be decided in a Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner has to

work out his remedy if at all he got any grievance in respect of the said

property in a competent civil Court. As the very pleadings in the Writ

Petition would clearly show that his title to the property was denied by

the 2nd respondent, it is clear that a cloud is cast on the title of the

petitioner in respect of the said property. Therefore, cause of action

arose for petitioner to seek declaration of his title to the said property in

a competent civil Court. Instead of seeking appropriate remedy in the

competent civil Court relating to the title dispute, the petitioner has

invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. As already noticed supra, the said disputed

question of fact relating to the title of the property cannot be gone into

in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is liable to be

dismissed.

A Four-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of D. L. F.

Housing Constrn. (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corpn.1, held that

where basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of law and

fact depending on the evidence are involved, the Writ Court is not the

proper forum for seeking relief and dismissal of writ petition in limine, in

such cases, is justified and remedy of regular suit is appropriate

remedy.

At para-20 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as follows:

"20. In our opinion, in a case where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking

1 (1976) 3 SCC 160

relief. The right course for the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. In the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. On this short ground while setting aside the findings of the High Court, we would dismiss both the writ petition and the appeal with costs. The appellants may, if so advised, seek their remedy by a regular suit."

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent civil

Court to seek declaration of his title and for redressal of his grievance in

respect of the property in question.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall

stand closed.

_______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 25.01.2022 AKN

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.1672 OF 2022

Date: 25-01-2022

AKN