Telangana High Court
Manchala Paramesh vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 22 July, 2021
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
****
W.P.No.16382 of 2021
Between:
Manchala Paramesh
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Telangana
Rep. By its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others.
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.7.2021
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
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMRNATH GOUD
+ WRIT PETITION No.16382 OF 2021
% 22.7.2021
# Manchala Paramesh
Petitioner
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana
Rep. By its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Kiran Palakurthi
^ Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION No.16382 OF 2021
ORDER:
1 This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
is directed assailing the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in
taking action against respondent Nos.4 to 7 who are trying to encroach
the plots of the petitioner bearing Nos.51/A and 51/B in
Sy.No.149/2/1/2/A admeasuring 222 sq. yards situated at Cheeryal
village and gram panchayat, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District
as illegal and arbitrary.
2 The case of the petitioner, in brief, was that the petitioner
purchased an extent of 222 sq. yards from Chandra Sekhar Reddy and
Pannala Buchi Reddy vide document No.4168/2020 dated 14.5.2020. In
the month of April 2021, when he inspected his plot, he came to know
that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are trying to make constructions near his
plot and trying to occupy it. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the
third respondent and submitted a written complaint dated 23.4.2021
and requested to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction being
made by the unofficial respondents. He also made representations before
the second respondent in that regard, but no action has been taken. In
spite of repeated requests, the third respondent neither conducted any
spot inspection nor gave any response. The construction activity in the
said plots is going on rapidly and if the same is not stopped, the
petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury and it would even
difficult for the third respondent to demolish the entire structure. Hence
the present Writ Petition.
3 Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader for Pancahyat Raj and Rural
Development.
4 The learned Government Pleader argued that the gram panchayat
has more responsible works to attend rather than settling civil disputes
between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and in many
matters offices of the gram panchayats are being burdened with such
complaints to resolve their private issues, without approaching civil
Court.
5 Admittedly, this is a private litigation between the petitioner and
the unofficial respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the
unofficial respondents are raising structures on the land upon which the
petitioner is having right and interest. Sections 113 and 114 of the
Panchayat Raj Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. The
petitioner has not placed on record and has not pointed out under what
provision of the statute he filed a complaint 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 of the petitioner, if the official respondents act
against the unofficial respondents, it amounts to invoking the
jurisdiction of the competent civil court having jurisdiction. It is not for
the official respondents or even to this Court to decide right, title and
interest of the parties over the property. 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
houses upon the property of the petitioner can also be decided. Pending
suit before the trial Court, the petitioner can always seek an interim
relief of injunction if so advised. 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.
6 The petitioner cannot agitate the cause of action, for which the
petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the competent civil court,
before a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or even
before the gram panchayat, because the rights of the petitioner or the
unofficial respondents upon the subject property can be decided by the
civil court only. Therefore, the efficacious remedy available to the
petitioner is to approach the competent civil court if he feels that his
property rights are infringed but he cannot involve the gram panchayat /
official respondents as an arm twisting to get a relief against the
unofficial respondents by way of filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
7 For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
8 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Writ Petition, shall
stand closed.
__________________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date: 22.7.2021
L.R. copy be marked
B/o Kvsn
