Herekar Shankar Lal vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4181 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4181 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2021

Telangana High Court

Herekar Shankar Lal vs State Of Telangana on 7 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                   WRIT APPEAL No.90 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


      The present Writ Appeal is arising out of an Order

dated 17.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.14284 of 2020 by the

learned Single Judge.


      The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was

preferred by the appellant/petitioner for issuance of an

appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of

the   Hyderabad        Metropolitan            Development               Authority

(HMDA) as well as the State of Telangana in dispossessing

the appellant/petitioner from the land in survey No.368,

to an extent of 702 square yards of Chandanagar Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without

following due process of law.


      It   was    stated       in    the      writ     petition          that   the

appellant/petitioner is the owner of land which is subject

matter of the dispute and he purchased the land from

Sri K.Ranga Reddy under an Agreement of Sale dated

16.05.1984 and thereafter got validated the same by

paying deficit stamp duty before the District Registrar,

Ranga Reddy District. It was also stated that even though

the said land is not the Government land, HDMA was
                                       2




interfering with the possession of the appellant/petitioner.

Reliance was also placed upon the Judgment delivered in

the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala

Krishna Rao1.



          On the other hand, a counter affidavit was filed in

the matter and it was stated that the land bearing survey

No.368, to the extent of Acs.3.12 guntas situated at

Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy          District,   was   acquired   by   Hyderabad    Urban

Development Authority (HUDA) on 31.10.1981 and the left

over land in survey No.368 is covered with graveyards and

Manjira water pipeline. It was also stated that the land

which was under public utility cannot be claimed by the

appellant/petitioner.


          The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ

petition and paragraph 7 of the order of the learned Single

Judge is reproduced as under:-

        "7. In Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala
        Krishna Rao and another's case (supra), the Hon'ble
        Apex Court held as follows:
            "Para 10: The conspectus of facts in the instant
            case justifies the view that the question as to the
            title to the three plots cannot appropriately be
            decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by
            Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession


1
    (1982) 2 SCC 134
                                3




  of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title

of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. Maybe, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily."

The facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the decision referred above. In the instant case, the Government has not contemplated to invoke Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Here, the petitioner is claiming title and possession over the land admeasuring 702 sq.yards in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the petitioner. Furthermore, there is a serious dispute that the petitioner is not at all in possession of any extent of land in Sy.No.368 situated at Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and hence, no relief of injunction restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioner till the disposal as indicated in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be granted in favour of the petitioner. It is settled law that if, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complicated questions of fact which require a regular and full-fledged trial are involved, it is but prudent that the Court should refrain itself from entertaining such

petition and relegate the party to the normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit. In the given circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought by him in this Writ Petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court, in accordance with law."

The learned Single Judge after discussing the entire

facts has arrived at the conclusion that there is a serious

dispute with regard to the title and possession of the

appellant/petitioner. The learned Single Judge, as

disputed question of facts were involved, has disposed of

the writ petition giving liberty to the appellant/petitioner

to approach the civil court in accordance with law.

This Court, after careful consideration of the

documents on record, keeping in view the involvement of

serious disputed question of facts, is of the opinion that

this Court cannot grant any injunction in favour of the

appellant/petitioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly