Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs M. Bapi Raju on 9 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                        WRIT APPEAL No.941 OF 2019

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

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

18.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17351 of

2017.

        The      undisputed          facts     of    the     case     reveal   that   the

respondents/writ petitioners came up before this Court being

aggrieved by the action of the respondents therein (appellants in

the present writ appeal) in demolishing compound wall and servant

quarters in the property, admeasuring 2415 square yards, in

Survey No.44/1 of Miyapur Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District, stating that they are the title holders and the

Government has erected sign boards stating that the land belongs

to the State Government. The petitioners have prayed for the

following relief in the writ petition:-

"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or orders and more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the compound wall, servant quarters and erecting Government signboards in the property of the writ petitioner measuring 2415 sq yards in Sy.No.44/1 of Miyapur village Serlignampally Mandal, R.R. Dist., without issuing any notice as being contrary to the right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to restore back possession."

It was further contended that the property has been

purchased through a registered sale deed, vide Document

No.2652/2004, on 09.03.2004 and the respondents/writ

petitioners are the exclusive title holders of the subject property.

However, on 03.05.2017 at around 09.30 AM, without any notice,

heavy machinery was deployed and the compound wall was

demolished. In support of the fact that the respondents/writ

petitioners are title holders, a copy of the sale deed, electricity bills

and other documents were brought on record.

On the other hand, the State Government has filed a counter

affidavit stating categorically that the respondents/writ petitioners,

in fact, are having title in respect of the land in Survey No.44/1 of

Miyapur Village and they are in illegal occupation of the land in

Survey No.214, admeasuring Ac.4.22 guntas in Madinaguda

Village, which is classified as 'graveyard' as per the revenue

records and they have encroached Ac.0.18 guntas of Government

land in Survey No.214. It was also stated that Survey No.44/1 is

part of Government land and there is a case registered under the

Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982.

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.

Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the impugned order are

reproduced as under:-

"19. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. and another ((2004) 1 SCC 769). In this case, the Court declared that as far as Indian Law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession; that if a trespasser is in settled possession of property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; and he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. It declared that the law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner, if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force.

20. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dt.21.03.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No.1363 of 2017 held as follows :

"While this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not adjudicate disputed questions of title, the proceedings under challenge in the Writ Petition are the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 10 of the Act, confirming the order of the Tahsildar passed under Section 6 of the said Act. Recourse to the provisions of the Act could only have been resorted to if the subject land is Government land, and where there is a serious dispute whether the subject land is Government land, or the private property of respondent-writ petitioner, this Court would not take upon itself the task of examining these disputed questions of title. That, however, does not mean that the Government, which claims that the subject lands belong to it, can unilaterally and conclusively decide that the subject lands are Government lands based merely on the letter "G" and the words "NIL AREA" as reflected in the TSLR, more so as no explanation is forthcoming as to why the name of the respondent-writ petitioner's vendor i.e., Smt. Fathimunnisa Begum is also reflected in the TSLR, if she was not the owner of the subject lands. As held in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Tummala Krishna Rao (AIR 1982 SC 1081), the Government, in summary proceedings, cannot unilaterally decide its own title over the property; and their remedy is only to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of title. Even otherwise, in proceedings under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, interference is justified only if the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity necessitating exercise of jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."

21. Thus, it is settled law that State cannot decide for itself whether it has title to the property or not without recourse to due process of law, particularly in the light of the pahani produced by the petitioner of 1426 Fasli showing that the subject land is patta land, take the law into its own hands and demolish the compound wall and structures for watchman in the petitioners' property.

22. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by 1st respondent to petitioners; the respondents shall reconstruct the compound wall and the structures demolished by them at expense of 1st respondent within a period of six (06) months; and shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property without following due process of law.

23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition shall stand closed."

This Court has also directed the State Government to carry

out survey. Accordingly, survey was carried out by the State

Government and an affidavit has also been filed in the matter. The

State Government, after surveying the land, has stated that the

land in question belongs to the State Government. Meaning

thereby, there is a serious dispute of title between the State

Government and the respondents/writ petitioners. A title dispute

cannot be decided in a writ petition nor in a writ appeal. The issue

of title certainly has to be decided in a civil suit filed by either

parties.

In the considered opinion of this Court, as there are disputed