The General Manager, vs Pekati Satyanarayana Reddy,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5050 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                           AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                  W.A.No. 888 of 2007
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant; Mr. M.Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for

respondents No.1 and 2; and Mr. T.V.Ramana, learned counsel

representing learned Government Pleader for Industries and

Commerce.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order

dated 25.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing

W.P.No.8440 of 2001 filed by respondents No.1 and 2 as the

writ petitioners.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the writ petitioners had filed

the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the

tender-cum-auction notice dated 06.04.2001 issued by the

appellant for auction sale of the land admeasuring Acs.11-26 ::2::

guntas in Survey No.167 of Kodicherla Village, Kotagiri Mandal,

Nizamabad District ( briefly 'subject land' hereinafter).

4. According to respondents No.1 and 2, they had purchased

the subject land vide two registered sale deeds

dated 20.05.2000 after thorough verification of the title of the

vendor. Their vendor was in possession of the subject land from

1955-56. Pahanies for the years 1955-56 and 1999-2000 reflect

the name of the vendor of respondents No.1 and 2 as the

pattadar and possessor of the subject land. Therefore, appellant

was not justified in issuing tender-cum-auction notice for auction

sale of the subject land.

5. Appellant contested the writ petition by filing counter-

affidavit. Stand taken by the appellant was that the subject land

originally belonged to the Government, which was purchased by

the appellant during the year 1946-47. Thus, appellant became

the absolute owner of the subject land.

::3::

6. Learned Single Judge noticed that the main grievance of

respondents No.1 and 2 was that appellant had issued the

tender-cum-auction notice when respondents No.1 and 2

claimed title over the same. Taking the view that dispute between

the parties relates to title and proceedings under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India would not be appropriate to decide the

same, learned Single Judge held that without a decision on title,

appellant was not justified in proceeding to auction the subject

land. Accordingly, the tender-cum-auction notice

dated 06.04.2001 was set aside while directing respondents No.1

and 2 to exhaust the remedies available under the law. It appears

that last paragraph of the order dated 25.07.2007 was substituted

following the order dated 18.09.2007 passed in

W.P.M.P.No.25560 of 2007. After the substitution, appellant

has been directed to exhaust the remedies available under the

law.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due

consideration, we concur with the view taken by the learned ::4::

Single Judge. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the

appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 as to title over the subject

land. While the appellant claims prior title on the basis of

purchase from the Government, respondents No.1 and 2 claim

title on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 20.05.2000

asserting that their vendors were in possession over the subject

land right from 1955-56 onwards.

8. It is a settled proposition that in case of conflict of similar

nature, it is the subsequent entries which carry more weightage.

Ofcourse, in a writ proceeding, we may not enter into such an

adjudication. However, as it was the appellant which triggered

the controversy by issuing tender-cum-auction sale notice,

learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellant to

first establish its title over the subject land before selling of the

same.

9. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with

the order passed by the learned Single Judge, though we make it ::5::

clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit on the

rival contentions as to title in respect of the subject land.

10. Writ 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: 12.10.2022 LUR/PRAT