Syed Zakir Hussain, B. E. Civil vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 712 Tel

Item No.7

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                 AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                    WRIT APPEAL No.75 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.    This is the third round of litigation initiated by the

appellant/writ petitioner. Prior to filing W.P.No.23472 of 2015, the

appellant had filed W.P.No.11264 of 2014 praying inter alia for

setting aside the order dated 15.03.2014, passed by the learned Upa-

Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2.    The appellant had approached the Upa-Lokayukta praying inter

alia that a direction be issued to the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal

to demarcate a plot admeasuring 1028 square yards falling in survey

Nos.149/A (part), 152/A (part), 153/A (part) Domara Pochampally

Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, in terms of four sale deeds by cancelling

the pattas issued to weaker sections and the Police Station, Dundigal.

After considering the complaint of the petitioner, the Upa-Lokayukta

rejected the same on merits. Aggrieved by the said rejection order,

the appellant had filed the captioned writ petition, which was listed

before a Division Bench and was disposed of vide order dated

15.04.2014 observing inter alia that the grievance of the appellant was

purely a civil dispute and that the learned Upa-Lokayukta ought not to

have gone into the merits of the matter. As a result, the findings

returned by the learned Upa-Lokayukta on merits were held not to be




W.A.No.75 of 2021                                          Page 1 of 3
 binding, if the appellant/writ petitioner would approach the

appropriate forum for ventilating a grievance.

3.    In spite of the observations made by the Division Bench that the

grievance raised by the appellant was purely a civil dispute, in the

very next year i.e., in 2015, the appellant/writ petitioner filed

W.P.No.23472 of 2015 praying inter alia for directing the respondents

to award him compensation and/or alternative land in view of

acquisition of his land for allotment to weaker sections and Police

Station. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned

order dated 13.12.2020, observing inter alia that there are serious

disputes with regard to the title and possession of the subject land,

which cannot be determined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, as a regular and full-fledged trial is required in

the matter. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty

granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to file a civil suit before the

competent civil Court for seeking redressal of his grievance.

4. Despite two Courts returning concurrent findings that there are

disputed questions of facts involved that cannot be adjudicated in writ

proceedings, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present

misconceived appeal again raising disputed questions of facts calling

upon this Court to examine and arrive at a conclusion as to whether he

is entitled to any compensation for the land in question from the

respondents. We are of the opinion that there is no error in the

observation made by the learned Single Judge. Apparently, there are

disputed questions of facts raised by the appellant/writ petitioner in

the petition, which have been contested by the respondents. The

entire issue needs to be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial.

5. It is therefore held that the impugned order does not warrant

any interference. The present appeal is dismissed in limine as

meritless along with the pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

05.03.2021 Lur/pln