Telangana High Court
Mudavath Padma vs The State Of Telangana on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No.815 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant;
Ms. Keerthi Kabra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Irrigation and Command Area Development representing
respondents No.1, 4, 5, 6 & 7; and Mr. M.Roopender, learned
Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.10.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.11.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.40348 of
2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant as the writ petitioner had filed the related writ
petition seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring action of respondent Nos.4 to 6
in interfering into the peaceful possession of the
petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts in
Sy.No.372/5 which is situated at Gundlapalli Village
and Mandal, Nalgonda District without issuing any
::2::
notice and following due process of law is illegal,
arbitrary, bad, against the principles of natural justice
and violation of Articles 19(1) (a) and 300‐A of the
Constitution of India and Consequently direct the
respondent Nos.4 and 6 not to interfere into the
peaceful possession of the petitioner's land and not to
dispose of the petitioner from her land to an extent
of Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.372/5 which is situated at
Gundlapalli Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District
without issuing any notice and without following due
process of law.
4. It was contended by the appellant before the learned Single
Judge that appellant is in peaceful possession of the land to an
extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.372/5 situated at
Gundlapalli Village and Mandal in Nalgonda District (briefly 'the
subject land' hereinafter). Appellant had purchased the subject land
by way of an unregistered sale deed on 15.11.2017. Earlier, one
Polam Nadipi Narayana was the pattadar of the subject land, who
had alienated the said land to the appellant. Notwithstanding
peaceful possession of the appellant over the subject land, it was
alleged that respondents No.4 to 6 were interfering with the
possession of the appellant.
::3::
5. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 03.11.2022
observed that appellant's claim to the subject land is through Polam
Nadipi Narayana by way of a simple sale deed. No material was
filed to show that appellant is in possession of the subject land. In
the circumstances, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
6. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there are electricity bills etc., which show that appellant is in
possession of the subject land.
7. We are afraid we cannot go into such issues in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the appellant
claims title over the subject land, it is open to her to approach the
competent civil court for appropriate declaration. A proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be a
substitute for such a civil proceeding. Therefore, we have
deliberately refrained from making any observations lest the same
may be considered to be adverse to the appellant.
::4::
8. In the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to
entertain the appeal.
9. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
dismissed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 12.12.2022
LUR
