Mohd. Khareem vs The State Of Telangana,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2101 Tel

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
                                ****
                        W.P.No.10142 of 2020

Between:

Mohd. Khareem & another
                                                            Petitioners
                              VERSUS

State of Telangana
Rep. By its Principal Secretary
Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others.
                                                        Respondents




           JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 14.7.2021


        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD


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


2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be
      Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?                 :   Yes


3.    Whether His Lordship wishes to
      see the fair copy of the Judgment?                :   No




                                           _________________________
                                            T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
           * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMRNATH GOUD

                   + WRIT PETITION No.10142 OF 2020

%     14.7.2021


#     Mohd. Khareem & another
                                                           Petitioners
                               VERSUS

$     State of Telangana
      Rep. By its Principal Secretary
      Panchayat Raj Department,
      Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others.

                                                         Respondents


!     Counsel for Petitioner         : Sri Padala Pravin Kumar


^     Counsel for the respondents    : Government Pleader for
                                       Panchayat Raj and Rural
                                       Development

                                        Sri G Narender Reddy, learned
                                        standing counsel for the gram
                                        panchayat.




<GIST:



> HEAD NOTE:



? Cases referred
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

                  WRIT PETITION No.10142 OF 2020

ORDER:

1 This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is directed assailing the inaction on the part of the

respondent Nos.2 to 5 in taking action against the 6th respondent

for constructing a house in the land admeasuring Ac.0-13 guntas

in Sy.No.39 of Gummadidhala village & Mandal, Sangareddy

District.

2 The case of the petitioners, in brief, was that their younger

paternal uncle by name Abdul Sattar Miya was Muthavali of

Ashoorkhana situated at Gummadidhala village. The Government

of Andhra Pradesh gifted Ac.0-13 guntas of land in Sy.No.39 of the

said village in favour of said Sattar Miya. He enjoyed the said land

till his death. The said Sattar Miya died issue less. It is the

further case of the petitioners that the subject land was given on

lease to the 6th respondent herein. The 6th respondent used to give

half of the usufructs derived from the said land to Sattar Miya till

his death and after his death to the petitioners herein. The second

petitioner, after the demise of Sattar Miya in the year 2001,

succeeded as Muthavali of Ashoorkhana. The 6th respondent used

to give the usufructs to the petitioners till the year 2006. But from

2006 onwards he is not paying any single pie on the land and he

was also not cultivating the land. Now, suddenly, the 6th

respondent started constructing a house in the subject land.

Questioning the same, the petitioners gave complaints dated

03.6.2020 and 30.6.2020 to the respondent authorities. As the respondent authorities are not taking any action against the 6th

respondent the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

3 Heard Sri P. Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Pancahyat Raj and

Rural Development and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned standing

counsel for the Gram Panchayat.

4 It is pertinent to notice from the proceedings dated

15.7.2020 that Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned standing counsel for

the gram panchayat concerned submitted that the petitioner has

not made any complaint to the 5th respondent authority with

regard to the alleged illegal construction being made to enable the

said authority to look into the same and submitted the

representation directly to the District Panchayat Officer-3rd

respondent herein.

5 The learned standing counsel argued that the gram

panchayat has more responsible works to attend rather than

settling civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial

respondent and in many matters offices of the gram panchayats

are being burdened with such complaints to resolve their private

issues, without approaching civil Court.

6 Admittedly, this is a private litigation between the petitioner

and the unofficial respondent No.6. It is the case of the petitioner

that the unofficial respondent is constructing a house upon the

land upon which the petitioner is having right and interest.

According to the petitioner the said construction is also unauthorized. The petitioner has not placed on record and has not

pointed out under what provision of the statute he filed a

complaint / representation before the respondent authorities and

their obligation to consider the representations. Since there is no

statutory obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to

deal with the representation of the petitioner, the legal right of the

petitioner for the inaction of the respondents is not infringed. That

basing upon the complaint / representation, if the official

respondents act against the unofficial respondent No.6, it amounts

to invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court having

jurisdiction. It is not for the official respondents to decide right,

title and interest of the parties. It is the trial court which would

appreciate the evidence and decide the matter. Once the issue of

right upon the property is decided, the consequential relief of

construction of house upon the property of the petitioners can also

be decided. Pending suit before the trial Court, the petitioner can

always seek an interim relief of injunction if so advised. The

petitioner has an efficacious remedy in approaching the civil Court

but not involving the gram panchayat / official respondents as an

arm twisting to get a relief against the unofficial respondents.

Bypassing trial Court, it is not open to the petitioner to involve the

gram panchayat and approaching the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be a shortcut

method in justice delivery system. Avoiding a direct relief from civil

court, the petitioner cannot choose relief in an indirect way, under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7 Further, the petitioner himself admitted in his affidavit that

the 6th respondent got mutated his name in the revenue records as

owner of the subject land. In that view of the matter, the

petitioners have to challenge the mutation orders stood in favour of

the 6th respondent.

8 If the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged constructions

being raised by the 6th respondent, they have to make

representation to the concerned gram panchayat seeking suitable

action against the 6th respondent. Simply they have made

representations to the 3rd respondent and filed the Writ Petition

attributing inaction on the part of the gram panchayat. In such a

situation, how can they expect any action from the gram

panchayat without giving complaint to it is not known. So without

bringing the matter into the notice of the gram panchayat, the

petitioners are not expected to complain inaction to it. The

petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. Hence

they do not deserve the relief sought for.

9 For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be and

is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

10 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Writ Petition,

shall stand closed.

__________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Date: 14.7.2021

L.R. copy be marked

B/o Kvsn