Naravaneni Satyam vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5559 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                  WRIT PETITION No. 11979 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

" .... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly 6th respondent herein in interfering the petitioners agricultural land in Sy.No. 473 and in Sy.No. 428 Singarayapalem Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District and also contrary to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 358/1989 dated 30.03.1994 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif at Khammam and also violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 6th respondent herein not to interfere with the petitioners land and to pass such order orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Sri Mamidala Thirumal Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the 6th respondent is trying to

construct Kalyana Mandapam in the petitioner's land

admeasuring Ac.9.26 guntas in Survey No. 473 and Ac.7.04

guntas in Survey No. 428 of Singarayapalem Village, Konijerla

Mandal, Khammam District. It is submitted that the petitioners

have purchased the property from their vendor on 17.02.1985

for a valuable sale consideration. It is submitted that O.S.No.

358 of 1989 was filed for declaration and injunction before the

Court of the Principal District Munisff at Khammam and

Respondents 2 and 6 are parties to the said suit. It is

submitted that the said suit was decreed by judgment and

decree dated 30.03.1994 and since then, the petitioners have

been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further

submitted that when there was interference by the respondents,

the petitioner filed E.P.No. 291 of 2005 in O.S.No. 358 of 1989

and they also filed E.A.No. 267 of 2005 praying to provide police

protection restraining the judgment debtors i.e. Gram

Panchayat, Singarayapalem from interfering with the property.

It is submitted that in the said E.P., an undertaking was filed

before the Court by the Panchayat Secretary stating that they

are not interfering with the petitioners' possession. Learned

counsel submits that even the pattadar passbooks and title

deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings

dated 16.10.2007 and thereafter, they were cancelled and

questioning that the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 34109

of 2012 which is pending consideration before this Court.

Learned counsel submits that Respondents 7 and 8 have

conducted puja for construction of function hall, hence, they

have been made as parties by name.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Respondents

No. 7 and 8, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have never

been in possession of the subject property and that no

registered sale deed is filed. It is stated that even in the

judgment, there are no findings that the petitioners are owners

of the property. It is stated that the dispute is purely private in

nature between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents

and the petitioners have to approach the competent civil Court.

It is submitted that the petitioners have never been in

possession of the property and they have no knowledge how the

pattadar passbooks have been issued to them.

4. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents Sri

P.Kishore Rao submits that the petitioners are claiming to have

purchased the property by way of an unregistered sale deed and

by virtue of the unregistered sale deed, it cannot be said that

rights in the said property have been transferred to the

petitioners and the petitioners have become owners of the

property. He submits that basing on such unregistered sale

deed, the petitioners cannot come up before this Court. He

submits that the suit is decreed and property belongs to the 2nd

plaintiff in the suit and it is not open to the petitioners to

contend that they are owners of the property basing on an

unregistered agreement of sale and the entire sale consideration

is not paid by the petitioners.

5. In response to the same, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the said sale consideration is paid.

6. The admitted facts in this case are that: petitioners

are plaintiffs 3 and 4 in the suit and as per the plaint

averments, these petitioners have purchased the property from

plaintiff No.2 and an agreement of sale and unregistered sale

deeds are executed in the said suit which is filed for declaration

against the gram panchayat. The said suit was decreed wherein

a categorical finding was given showing that the 2nd plaintiff is

the owner of the property and the petitioners are in possession

of the property. The said judgment was not questioned by the

gram panchayat and it has attained finality. Now the case of the

petitioners are that the unofficial respondents are interfering

with their possession.

7. Though a contention is raised that by virtue of

unregistered sale deed, the rights in the property cannot be

transferred, the fact remains that the gram panchayat is not the

owner of the property and it is held by a competent civil Court

that plaintiff No.2 is the owner of the property and the Court

has also given a finding that petitioners are in possession of the

property. If that is the case, the respondent gram panchayat

having accepted the said judgment and having not filed an

Appeal against the said judgment which has attained finality,

now it is not open for them to say that the petitioners were

never in possession of the property. Without going into further

facts, as far as petitioners' title to the property is concerned,

only taking into consideration the judgment and decree in

O.S.No. 358 of 1980 and further, the undertaking filed by the

Panchayat Secretary before the Court below, that they are not

interfering with the said property, this Writ Petition is disposed

of directing Respondents 1 to 6 not to interfere with the

possession of the petitioners without following due process of

law. As there is no relief sought against Respondents 7 and 8,

no direction is given to them. No order as to costs.

8. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

closed.

-----------------------------------

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 01st November 2022

ksld