Katta Ramadevi vs The Telangana State Transco
2021 Latest Caselaw 2239 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                    WRIT PETITION No. 33959 of 2018
ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in attempting to demolish their compound wall on

four sides, situated in H. No. 5-11-58, Jyothi Nagar, Old Palvoncha,

Palvoncha Town & Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, in the land

admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy. Nos. 37/AA & 38/AA under the guise

of survey notice of the respondent No. 7, dated 10.09.2018 as arbitrary

and illegal.

The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner and possessor

the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 04.04.1983.

Subsequent of the purchase, she had constructed a house duly obtaining

permission from the Palvoncha Municipality on 05.03.2005. After

acquisition of the land by the official respondents to an extent of Ac.5-30

guntas in the same survey numbers for construction of staff quarters of KV

Sub-Station, Seetharamapatnam, they have also constructed a compound

wall for towards northern side of petitioner's house. The petitioner has

also constructed a compound wall covering the subject land owned by

him. However, upon the application given by the respondent No. 3

seeking determination of boundaries for their acquired land of Ac.5-30

guntas, the respondent No. 7 issued notice, dated 10.09.2018 informing

the petitioner about the survey to be conducted on 14.09.2018. Since the

respondent No. 7 is not competent to conduct the survey, the petitioner

has given an application to the respondent No. 6 requesting to conduct

survey through Deputy Surveyor. However, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3

are making attempts to influence the respondent No. 7 in order to give a

survey report in their favour.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Vinod Reddy,

the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned

Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and the learned

Government Pleader for Home. Perused the material available on record.

In the counter filed by respondents No.1 to 3 it is stated that the

petitioner, way back in 2010, had filed a suit in O.S.No.630 of 2010 on the

file of Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and the trial Court, duly taking into

consideration the Mandal Surveyor Report, has dismissed the suit on

25.09.2013 with a categorical finding that the petitioner was in possession

only to an extent of Ac.0.14 guntas, instead of Ac.0.20 guntas, as claimed

by the petitioner. The petitioner did not choose to file a reply denying the

said allegations.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that an

appeal being A.S.No.17 of 2013 has been preferred as against the

Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No 630 of 2010

and the same was withdrawn subsequently.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition. Once the finding of the

Civil Court that the petitioner is in possession of Ac.0.14 guntas only, has

become final, no contra finding can be given by this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the

petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of

title and recovery of possession, if she is so advised.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date: 29.07.2021.

smr