Battu Pandu vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1370 Tel

Item No.31



        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

          I.A.No.1 OF 2020 IN/AND W.A.No.131 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.      The present appeal is directed against an order dated 28.12.2020

passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.13538 of 2020

filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

2.      The prayer made by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ

petitioner is for issuing a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the

respondents No.3 to 5 viz., District Collector, Mahabubabad District,

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District

and Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District of

dispossessing him from his land to the extent Acs.5-00 Gts in

Sy.No.551/888/4, situated at Mahabubabad Revenue Village Sivar,

Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District, as illegal. Further, the

appellant/writ petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents Nos.6

to 8, the Roads & Buildings Department of allegedly constructing a

R & B Guest House, Collector's Bungalow and Fish Market on his land

without following the due process of law.

3. In the impugned order, the statement of learned Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents No.6 to 8 has been recorded to the

effect that originally, land measuring Acs.3-00 Gts in Sy.No.551/888/50

was assigned to one Yadagiri Charyulu and thereafter, it was resumed by

the Government vide proceedings dated 08.06.1994, for the purposes of

construction of office buildings and therefore, no land was left with the

appellant/writ petitioner. Further, in the proceedings dated 24.08.2020

issued by the Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal, it was recorded that the

appellant/writ petitioner had sold his land in Sy.No.551/888/4 to

different persons by virtue of unregistered documents and he had also

admitted to the fact that land measuring Acs.3-00 Gts was allotted to the

R & B Department which was not a part of his land but was situated in

the land of one Laxmipathi.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1, 3-5/Revenue

Department had submitted before the learned Single Judge that during an

enquiry conducted by the respondent No.5/Tahsildar, sworn statements

were obtained from land owners/purchasers of land in the presence of

the appellant/writ petitioner showing the sale documents executed by

him in their favour and the writ petitioner had also admitted that after the

demise of his father, he had left the subject land uncultivated for |

20 years. The appellant/writ petitioner had also admitted to the fact that

the adjacent land measuring Acs.3-00 Gts in Sy.No.551/52 was allotted

to R & B office and the same was not his land, but the land belonging to

Laxmipathi.

5. Noting that there were disputed questions of fact relating to

ownership and possession of the land claimed by the appellant/writ

petitioner at the site in question, the learned Single Judge has disposed of

the writ petition holding that the said aspects could not be examined in

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the

parties would have to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ

petitioner seeks to repeat the submissions that were made before the

learned Single Judge which are vehemently disputed by learned counsel

for the respondents No.6 to 8 stating that all the assertions made by the

appellant/writ petitioner are incorrect and that the Department has not

raised any construction on his land, but on the land allotted to the

Government in respect whereof, the appellant/writ petitioner does not

possess a title.

7. The fact that disputed questions of fact have been raised by the

appellant/writ petitioner is apparent from the stand taken by the parties,

as recorded in the impugned order. We see no reason to differ with the

view taken by the learned Single Judge that once disputed questions of

fact have arisen, the parties ought to be relegated to seek their remedies

on the civil side as the same is beyond the scope of adjudication under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. For the aforesaid reason, while upholding the impugned order, the

present appeal is dismissed in limine as meritless along with the

interlocutory applications.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 27.04.2021 Lrkm