Telangana High Court

D. Chandrasekhar Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 15 June, 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.325 of 2022

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

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

03.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6938

of 2014.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

appellants/writ petitioners came up before the learned Single

Judge stating that they have purchased land admeasuring

Acs.26.00 and Acs.10.00 respectively in Survey Nos.1007/A and

1007/A2 of Kaitalapur Village, Kukatpally, and they are the

absolute owners and are in possession of the said property. The

names of their successors in title were reflected in the revenue

records from 1954-55 till 1983-84 and the appellants/writ

petitioners submitted an application for mutation of their land

and for fixing the boundaries.                   It has been stated that from

1984-85,       their     names        were     reflected      as      possessors and

khariddars and subsequently, they got the sale deed validated

on 30.11.1990.            It has been further stated that the revenue

records were destroyed in a fire accident in the year 1998 and

without following due process of law, the names of the
                                      2




appellants/writ petitioners were deleted in the revenue records.

The appellants/writ petitioners have further stated that they did

submit an application on 25.01.2010 seeking mutation and it

was found that the location sketch does not tally with the

documents schedule and the physical possession in the lay out.

The revenue authorities, as the record was not available, have

directed the parties to approach the Civil Court and the learned

Single Judge, as there was a serious dispute with regard to the

identity of the property, has also directed the appellants/writ

petitioners to approach the Civil Court.

      The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

             "A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner,
       more particularly the pahanies for the years 1982-83 to
       2008-2009 shows that initially the name of the vendor of the
       petitioners was reflected in the pahani for the year 1982-83
       for an extent of Acs.36-00 guntas. Thereafter in the pahani
       for the year 1991-92, the name of the petitioners is reflected
       both in pattadar as well as possession columns and in the
       remarks column it is mentioned vide proceedings dated
       B/ROR/2693/90 dated 30.11.1990 and the said entries
       continued in the pahani for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94.
       That in the pahani for the year 2005-2006 in respect of
       survey No.1007/aa, the name of Nawab Meer Fazal Hussain
       is reflected in the pattadar column and the names of the
       petitioners are reflected in the possession column and the
       same continued till 2008-2009. Moreover, as evidenced from
                                      3




the memo, dated 19.05.2009, of the Deputy Tahsildar,
Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the file through
which the mutation was carried in favour of the petitioners
seems to have been destroyed in a fire accident. The memo
of the Deputy Tahsildar, dated 19.05.2009, also reflected
that the matter has been enquired by the Mandal Revenue
Officer and Mandal Surveyor and they have reported that
the boundaries shown in the document plan and location
sketch submitted by the petitioners are not tallying with the
physical   possession      and       lay       out   submitted   by   the
petitioners.

      Admittedly, the petitioners themselves have stated
that they have filed a suit for injunction vide O.S. No.1457
and 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Besides the suit filed by
the petitioners, there are other civil suits pending before the
Civil Court, which were filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 and

other persons. Admittedly, the original proceedings, which were issued regularizing a sada sale deed in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings No.B/ROR/2693/90 dated 30.11.1990, were already burnt in a fire accident and no longer available. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Joint Collector taking into account the fact that there is a serious dispute with regard to the title and possession, and that there are multiple claims made by various parties, there is a dispute with regard to the boundary and identity of the subject property, has dismissed the revision granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. The Joint Collector, duly taking into account the fact that the original records have been destroyed in fire and there is no way of knowing the truth as to the genuineness of the entries made, has passed the impugned order.

This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases have held that the revenue officials are ill-

suited to deal with the appeals or revisions pending before them, if there are serious disputed questions of title and rival claims between various parties. The rival claimants are disputing the very proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners. Unless and until the petitioners are able to establish that the proceedings issued in their favour are valid proceedings issued by a competent authority before the Civil Court, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality with the order passed by the Joint Collector. As seen from the record, the Joint Collector has given liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. Admittedly, the petitioners have already approached the Civil Court by way of filing a mandatory injunction and the same is pending adjudication. When there is a serious dispute with regard to the identity of the property, the Civil Court is best suited to deal with the same and this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate those disputes.

In Mansrover Steel Industries (p.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. ((2005) 13 SCC 440), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"Where the High court comes to the conclusion that there are disputed question of fact, the high court should gave then relegated the appellants to an appropriate court, instead of dismissing the writ petition."

Sana Radha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021 SCC OnLine AP 326) at para 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"This Court cannot also state simply that since there are disputed questions of fact it will not enter into the areas of controversy. This Court has a duty to spell out what are the disputed questions of fact, which need to be established and adjudicated.

Therefore, the issues that are spelt out are for the limited purpose of pointing out the matters which in the opinion of the Court need to be proved in a Civil Court through proper pleading and evidence. In the opinion of this Court, these are all the matters of pleading and evidence, which are best addressed and decided in a regular civil suit. In the opinion of this Court, a civil suit is the proper and efficacious remedy for this case and not a Writ. Disputed question cannot be decided in the Writ.