Vallurupalli Tarakeswar And ... vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4001 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                  WRIT APPEAL No.438 of 2022



JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Mr. K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. Srinivas Srikanth, learned Government

Pleader     for     Municipal            Administration               and    Urban

Development Department appearing for respondent No.1;

Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondents No.2 to 5; and

Mr. R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondent No.8.

2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against

the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge dismissing W.P.No.15550 of 2022 filed by the

appellants as the writ petitioners.

3. The related writ petition was filed seeking the

following reliefs:

"In the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 7 laying 28' ft wide road by encroaching to an extent of 8' ft to 10' ft into the petitioners patta land of 2000 sq. yards in Plot No.4 in Sy.No.90/2 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at the instance of 8th respondent as arbitrary, malafide, opposed to law, violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 7 to remove the road to the extent of encroachment about 8' ft to 10' ft made into the petitioners patta land in Plot No.4 in Sy.No.90/2 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District absolutely belonging to the petitioners in the interests of justice and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose."

4. Case of the appellants as projected in the writ

petition was summed up by the learned Single Judge in the

following manner:

"2. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners along with three others purchased the property in an auction

conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and a common sale certificate was issued on 24.05.2004 and since then, they are in peaceful possession of the property. It is stated that in respect of the petitioners' plot of 2000 square yards, it is clearly mentioned that there is passage on Southern side and 120 feet road on eastern side. It is stated that the 8th respondent is the co-brother of petitioner No.1 and both of them have given the property when their relationship was cordial for development and in view of the strained relation, the 8th respondent started harassing the petitioners by filing false cases one after the other as he could not get permission for high-rise construction as it is only a passage of 15' on Southern side to reach his plot. It is stated that the 8th respondent in collusion with the official respondents got issued a notice on 07.01.2022 as if the petitioners have encroached the 30' wide road and directed the petitioners to remove the blue tin sheets which were erected enclosing their plot within three days for which the petitioners gave reply dated 10.01.2022, but the 6th respondent has not passed any order and the 8th respondent in order to justify his illegal claim of 30' road on Southern side, got his plot regularized through LRS proceedings showing 30' road on Southern side. It is stated that Respondents 6 and 7 are aware of the ground position and also there is only 15' wide road, however, basing on the LRS Application, they laid 28' wide road with footpath for the sake of the 8th respondent. Hence, the petitioners have come up before this Court."

5. Stand taken by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation (GHMC) was that Land Regularisation Scheme

(LRS) proceedings were initiated in the year 2017 and on

the basis of such proceedings and following the laid down

norms, GHMC completed laying of road in the month of

February, 2022. That apart, it was contended that

unofficial respondents filed O.S.No.2416 of 2019 on the file

of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking a declaration that the

existing 30 feet wide road is a public road and sought for

perpetual injunction.

6. According to the appellants they had filed

W.P.No.26935 of 2019 questioning the LRS proceedings.

The said writ petition is pending.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on

due consideration, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition by holding as follows:

"6. Admitted facts in this case are that LRS proceedings were issued on 26.09.2017 and the official respondents basing on the said proceedings after complying with the formalities have laid the road in the

month of February. A suit which is filed in respect of the very same 30' road is pending before the civil court. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the notice dated 07.01.2022 issued by the respondent Corporation.

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievance in the suit pending before the civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs."

8. Thus, we find that learned Single Judge has taken

the view that LRS proceedings were initiated on 26.09.2017

and on the basis of such proceedings, the road was laid in

February, 2022. That apart, a civil suit is pending seeking

a declaration that the road in question is a public road and

seeking perpetual injunction. Therefore, Court declined to

interfere with the notice. However, liberty was granted to

the parties to agitate their grievance in the suit pending

before the civil Court.

9. We find that civil suit has been instituted by Shri

Lakshmi Ganapathy Industries Private Limited, as the

plaintiff, represented by its Managing Director i.e.,

respondent No.8. Appellant No.1 is the defendant. Prayer

made in the suit is as follows:

"The plaintiff, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in its favour and against the defendant.

a) declaring the existing 30' wide road as a public road;

b) granting a perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents, followers, etc. and anyone claiming through or under him, from occupying the suit road;

      c)      award costs of this suit; and

      d)      grant such other relief as to this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper, in the interests of justice."

10. Therefore, the principal prayer made in the suit is for

declaring the existing 30 feet wide road as a public road.

11. Parallelly, upon receipt of complaint from respondent

No.8 regarding encroachment by the appellants over the

land in question, GHMC officials inspected the site and

noticed that appellants, being owners of plot No.4 of Survey

No.90/2 situated at Gachibowli, has encroached the 30

feet wide road partly by way of tin sheets and cuddy

stones. Accordingly by notice dated 07.01.2022 appellants

were directed to remove the tin sheets and cuddy stones

erected on the road.

12. Reverting back to the prayers made by the appellants

in the writ petition, we find that appellants had sought for

a declaration that the action of the GHMC and its officials

in laying the road at the instance of respondent No.8 is

illegal and therefore, the same should be quashed. The

prayer so made and any possible relief based thereon

would require adducing of evidence, since complicated

questions of fact and law are involved. Therefore, learned

Single Judge rightly held that there is no good reason to

interfere with the impugned notice under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India while granting liberty to the parties to

agitate their grievance in the pending civil suit in which

appellant No.1 is already the defendant.

13. We see no reason to disturb such finding of the

learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we decline to entertain

the writ appeal.

14. Writ Appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

01.08.2022 vs