Dr.Lanka Sunita vs The Govt Of Andhra Pradesh, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3831 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                          AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


                       WRIT APPEAL No.80 of 2010

JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


        The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

21.01.2008 passed in W.P.No.23949 of 2006 by the learned

Single Judge.

        The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/writ

petitioner preferred a writ petition against respondent Nos.3

and 4 therein/The Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayatnagar

Mandal, Hyderabad and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,

alleging that the boundary wall and its adjacent rooms of the

petitioner's house bearing municipal No.3-6-369/B/38, Road

No.1, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, have been illegally

demolished and the property has been taken by the

respondents for constructing a road. A prayer was made to

restore the land to the petitioner and to pay damages. Reply

was filed in the matter by the State and it was stated by the

State Government that the land in question is a Government

land. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition. The operative paragraph of the order of the learned

Single Judge is as under:

"From the respective pleadings, it is clear that there is a serious dispute regarding the title of the property. Though the petitioner filed copies of the sale deed and gift deed in support of her contention that title is vested in her, her claim is seriously disputed by the respondents. As pointed out by the respondents, the petitioner, who claimed in her affidavit that her mother obtained building

permission for constructing the building, neither furnished the details of the same nor filed a copy of the sanctioned plan. The respondents, as noted above, specifically stated that the mother of the petitioner gave her consent in response to the notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachments Act, 1905. Though the counter- affidavit was filed as far back as 01-03-2007, no reply affidavit has been filed so far controverting the allegations contained in the counter-affidavits of respondents 3 and 4. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the extent of 299.44 square yards of land, forming part of premises bearing No.3-6-399/B/3/8, has already been taken over and used for the purpose of road widening. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy for the petitioner to claim relief, as has been done in this Writ Petition. In view of the seriously disputed issue regarding title of the property, the only appropriate remedy for the petitioner, in my considered view, is to approach the competent civil Court for adjudication of title, before claiming either restoration of the land or compensation in lieu thereof from the respondents.

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed."

The learned Single Judge has dealt with the proceedings

initiated by the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh Land

Encroachment Act, 1905, and keeping in view the fact that

the land has been taken over and used for the purpose of

road widening, has not interfered in the matter specially

keeping in view the disputed question of title between the

parties. The State was claiming the land to be a Government

land and the petitioner therein was claiming it to be a private

land. The learned Single Judge has held that in case of a

dispute relating to title, the appropriate remedy is to

approach the civil Court.

In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court also

does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with the

liberty already granted in the matter by the learned Single

Judge.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 29.11.2021 ES