G. Kaushik And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2197 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

               WRIT PETITION No.20595 OF 2019
                ALONG WITH I.A. No.1 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

      This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent

No.3 in not providing the police protection to the petitioners for

cultivating their agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.4-25 guntas in

Survey No.189 and Ac.0-38 guntas in Survey No.188, making a total

extent of Acs.5-22 guntas, situated at Dayara Village of Keesara

Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, albeit there is a judgment and

decree in O.S. No.1210 of 2008 against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and

also despite receipt of complaint dated 09.07.2019, as illegal, and for a

consequential direction to respondent No.3 to provide police

protection for cultivating the lands, whereas, I.A. No.1 of 2021 is filed

by respondent No.4 seeking to vacate the interim orders, dated

20.09.2019 passed by this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2019.

2. FACTS:

i. The petitioners herein are claiming that they are the owners of

agricultural lands, admeasuring Acs.4-25 guntas in Survey

No.189 and Ac.0-38 guntas in Survey No.188, making a total

extent of Acs.5-22 guntas, situated at Dayara Village of Keesara

Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, which is hereinafter

referred to as 'subject lands', having purchased the same under KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.9152 of 2003,

10078 of 2003, 6365 of 2004 and 6366 of 2004.

ii. They are in possession of the subject lands by erecting fencing

with khadis and barbed wires.

iii. Their names were mutated in the revenue records, and the

Revenue Authorities have also issued Pattadar Pass Books and

Title Deeds in their favour.

iv. They are cultivating the subject lands.

v. When respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with anti-social elements

tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the

subject lands, they have filed a civil suit vide O.S. No.1210 of

2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against them for perpetual

injunction.

vi. The said suit has decreed vide judgment and decree dated

10.07.2018 and, thus, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were restrained

from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the petitioner over the subject lands.

vii. The said judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 is in force.

3. Heard Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

and also Mr. S. Rama Mohana Rao, learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS:

i) Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that on

07.07.2019, respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with anti-

social elements came over the subject lands, removed the

khadis and erected small stones and created hurdles, and

thereby they have disobeyed the above said judgment and

decree passed in O.S. No.1210 of 2008.

ii) He would further submit that then the petitioners have

lodged a complaint with respondent No.3 dated

09.07.2019 requesting the police to provide police aid for

implementation of the said judgment and decree in O.S.

No.1210 of 2008.

iii) Despite receiving and acknowledging the said complaint,

respondent No.3 did not act upon it.

iv) They have also filed E.P. against respondent Nos.4 and 5

for willfully disobeying the said judgment and decree and

detaining them in civil prison along with an application

seeking for police aid.

v) Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

5. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 20.09.2019,

directed respondent No.3 to provide necessary police aid to the

petitioners for implementation of injunction order, dated 10.07.2018

passed in O.S. No.1210 of 2008.

6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.4 made his appearance

through his counsel and filed counter along with vacate stay petition

vide I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P. No.20595 of 2019.

7. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.4

i) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that

originally, there is a Lay Out called 'Dayanand Nagar

Colony in Survey Nos.189 and 190 at Keesara Village,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District done way back on

11.10.1985 and plots were laid to an extent of Acs.4-20

guntas by assigning plot numbers.

ii) Original Pattadars had executed a registered GPA bearing

document No.934 of 1985, dated 26.08.1985 in favour of

Mr. Seelam China Ramaiah and Mr. Dayanand to sell

and register the plots. Pursuant to the same, they sold the

plots after laying the lay out to several persons, who have

been in possession and enjoyment of the same as bona

fide purchasers since then.

iii) Thereafter, Mr. Seelam China Ramaiah executed a

registered GPA bearing document No.689 of 1986 dated KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

20.05.1986 in favour of Mr. M. Dayanand for the

purpose of selling the plots.

iv) Mr. M. Dayanand, the GPA Holder of the Pattadars filed

a petition under Section - 5 (5) of ROR Act for

cancellation of Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of

Pattadars after the plots were laid and the Special Grade

Deputy Collector and RDO vide proceedings

No.A2/116/2006, dated 29.09.2006, cancelled the

Pattadar Pass Books / Title Deeds which were issued by

MRO, Keesara Mandal, and directed to take steps to

recover the said deeds. The said orders have become

final.

v) The Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, on the application made

by respondent No.4 and 5 and after getting report from

the Mandal Revenue Inspector under Memo

No.B/41/2014, dated 10.01.2014, directed the Village

Revenue Officer to record as "Plots" in the pahanies to an

extent of Acs.4.00 guntas in the subject survey numbers.

vi) Respondent No.4 is owner of plot No.1, admeasuring 256

square yards in the said lay out vide registered document

No.15557 of 2018 dated 08.08.2018 having purchased

from one Ms. Konda Lakshmi Devi, who purchased the

same under registered sale deed bearing document

No.8092 of 1985, dated 05.12.1985.

KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

vii) He is also owner of plot No.2, in the said lay out vide

registered document No.15558 of 2018 dated 08.08.2018

having purchased from his Vendor, who purchased the

same under registered sale deed bearing document

No.8091 of 1985, dated 05.12.1985.

viii) He is also owner of Plot Nos.52, 55, 56 and 61 purchased

under registered sale deed bearing document No.2380 of

2018, dated 15.02.2018.

ix) Besides the above said plots, M/s. Satavahana Associates,

represented by respondent No.4 herein, acquired Plot

Nos.59, 35, 12 and 16 under an Agreement of Sale - cum

- GPA, dated 09.12.2005, and so also Plot No.58,

admeasuring 335 square yards under Agreement of Sale -

cum - GPA, dated 11.04.2005.

x) The Pattadars, who had already alienated the land to third

party and after laying the plots, sold the very same land

as agricultural land which was then non-existing as

agricultural land.

xi) Based on the said fraudulent documents, the petitioners

herein are trying to occupy the land and clandestinely

trying to change the nature of land and the subject lands;

KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

xii) After obtaining ex parte decree and interim orders from

this Court, the petitioners have been making attempts to

remove the boundaries and make it into a plain land.

xiii) Then he gave a complaint to the Tahsildar on 10.05.2021;

xiv) Prior to the said complaint, he also gave a complaint to

the Police, Keesara and the same was registered as FIR

No.118 of 2021 against the petitioners.

xv) The petitioners are not entitled for any police protection

as the land in Survey Nos.189 and 190 is non-existent.

xvi) Since the petitioners obtained ex parte decree, he filed a

petition vide I.A. No.1077 of 2019 in O.S. No.1210 of

2008 to set aside the ex parte decree and the same is

pending.

xvii) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for

respondent No.4 sought to dismiss the writ petition by

vacating the interim orders passed by this Court on

20.09.2019.

8. FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) In view of the above rival submissions and a perusal of the

record would reveal that both the petitioners and respondent No.4 are

claiming right over the very same land. According to the petitioners,

the subject land is in Survey Nos.188 and 189 of Dayara Village, KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

Keesara Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, whereas, respondent

No.4 claiming that his plots are in Survey Nos.189 and 190 of the very

same village. It appears the survey number in which both the parties

are claiming is 189. According to respondent No.4, Mr. Dayanand

and Mr. Seelam China Ramaiah were the GPA Holders of original

Pattadars, and after developing the said land by converting them into

plots, they have sold the plots to various people including respondent

No.4 herein. The original pattadars, who had already alienated the

land to third party and after laying the plots, sold the very same land

as agricultural land which was then non-existing as agricultural land.

Thus, both the petitioners and respondent No.4 are claiming right, title

and possession over the same land.

ii) A perusal of the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2008

passed in O.S. No.1210 of 2008 would reveal that it was an exparte

decree. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.4 and 5 after

entering their appearance through their counsel, remained ex parte

and, therefore, the Court below passed the judgment and decree ex

parte on 10.07.2018. According to the petitioners, the said judgment

and decree were passed on merits, whereas, according to respondent

No.4, due to various reasons, he could not appear before the Court

below and, therefore, the Court below has passed the said judgment

and decree ex parte. Thus, he has filed an application vide I.A.

No.1077 of 2019 seeking to set aside the said judgment and decree

and the same is pending for consideration.

KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

iii) A perusal of the record would further reveal that the

petitioners herein have also filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.

No.98 of 2019 seeking execution of the said judgment and decree in

O.S. No.1210 of 2008. The petitioners herein have also filed E.A. in

the said E.P. seeking police aid to protect the subject land. All the

said facts have been specifically mentioned in paragraph No.8 of the

writ affidavit. Thus, according to the petitioners, the said E.P as well

as E.A. is pending before the Court below. As stated above, the

interlocutory application filed by respondent No.4 seeking to set aside

the ex parte judgment and decree in O.S. No.1210 of 2008 is also

pending. Thus, the petitioners herein are pursuing parallel remedies

i.e., by filing an application before the Court below vide E.A. in E.P.

and by way of present writ petition.

iv) There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that this

Court under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India is having power

to grant police aid. Law is well-settled on the said issue right from the

decision in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S. Santhoshanagar1,

P. R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar2,

Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.)3,

Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Station House Officer4, A. Bharathi v.

State of Telangana5 and as confirmed by a Division Bench of High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and

. AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB)

. (2006) 4 SCC 501

. (1996) 4 SCC 127

. 2016 (1) ALD 696 (DB)

. 2017 (1) ALD 503 KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

Andhra Pradesh in B. Ravi Yadav v. A.Bharathi6. But, the facts in

the present case are different. There are serious disputed questions of

facts.

v) As discussed supra, the petitioners herein are claiming that

they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land,

whereas, according to respondent No.4, original pattadars through

their GPA Holders, have developed the said property by converting

them into plots and sold the plots to various persons including

respondent No.4 herein. The original pattadars have already sold the

said land through their GPA Holders, and again they cannot sell the

said land to the petitioners herein. Thus, it is a fraud. There are

serious complicated questions of law with regard to right, title and

possession of the petitioners which cannot be decided in a writ

petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. It is

settled law that this Court is having power to consider the questions of

facts by invoking its power under Article - 226 of the Constitution of

India. The Apex Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit

Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.7, and the same was reiterated by a

Division Bench, to which I am a Member, of this Court in M/s. Agni

Aviation Consultants v. State of Telangana8, but, certainly, not

complicated questions of facts alike the present one.

. W.A. No.1066 of 2016, decided on 24.10.2016

. (2004) 3 SCC 553

. (2020) 5 ALD 561 KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

vi) In Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews v. State of

Kerala9, the Apex Court held that considering the facts of the said

case, where 200 civil suits are pending in different Courts in the State

with regard to title and possession of the properties of the parties

therein which involves serious disputed questions of facts and,

therefore, the High Court in revision cannot go into rival contentions

of the parties. Matter involving private law remedy cannot be

entertained by High Court invoking its extra-ordinary powers under

Article - 226 of the Constitution of India.

vii) At the cost of repetition, as discussed above, there are

serious complicated questions of facts with regard to the right, title

and possession of the petitioners. The same have to be decided by a

competent jurisdictional Civil Court. The application filed by

respondent No.4 seeking to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.

No.1210 of 2008, E.P. No.98 of 2019 and E.A. seeking police aid are

pending.

9. CONCLUSION:

i) As discussed above, the petitioners herein cannot pursue

parallel remedies. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief

sought in the present writ petition. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the petitioners have to pursue their remedy before the Court

below in E.P. No.98 of 2019 in O.S.No.1210 of 2008. The petitioners

failed to make out any case to grant relief in their favour as sought in

. AIR 2007 SCW 4367 KL,J W.P. No.20595 of 2019

this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I.A.

No.1 of 2021 is allowed, and the interim order granted by this Court

on 20.09.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 stands vacated. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ

Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 26th July, 2021 Mgr