Telangana High Court

Nallamala Purnachandra Rao vs Bandi Ramesh Babu on 21 March, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.357 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


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

appellant and Mr. Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for

respondents No.1 to 3/writ petitioners.                      We have also

heard Dr. J.Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for

respondents No.4 to 9.

2. This intra-court appeal has been filed under Clause

15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant, who was arrayed

as respondent No.12 in the writ proceeding, against the

order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge

allowing W.P.No.8986 of 2018 filed by respondents No.1 to

3 as the writ petitioners.

3. Respondents No.1 to 3 had filed the related writ

petition taking exception to the memo dated 16.02.2018

issued by the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue

Department, Government of Telangana, keeping in

abeyance the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the

District Collector, Bhadradi Kothagudem District, dated

24.06.2017, for setting up of a retail petroleum outlet by

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) in land

admeasuring 2420 square yards in Survey Nos.455/13,

455/13A and 455/13AA situated at Laxmipuram Village,

Burgampahad Mandal in Khammam District, till disposal

of O.S.No.43 of 2015 on the file of learned VII Additional

District Judge at Khammam.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there

is a land dispute between appellant as well as respondents

No.1 to 3 together with BPCL in respect of which vendor of

the appellant had instituted O.S.No.43 of 2015 before the

learned Additional District Judge, Khammam. In the said

proceeding, status quo order was passed by the civil court

in respect of the petition schedule property.

4.1. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.1

to 3 submits that thereafter the case was transferred and is

now on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge at

Khammam.

4.2. When the civil court had passed an order of status

quo, the District Collector ought not to have granted NOC

to BPCL. When the appellant complained before the

Special Chief Secretary, he rightly directed to keep in

abeyance the NOC till disposal of the civil suit. Learned

Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the memo

issued by the Special Chief Secretary dated 16.02.2018.

5. From the materials on record we find that the petition

schedule property in O.S.No.43 of 2015 is as follows:

Agriculture dry land in Sy.No.455/14/a to an extent of Ac.0.08 gts, Sy.No.455/17/e as per title deed Sy.No.455/17/aa to an extent of Ac.0.34½ gts, Sy.No.455/17/aa to an extent Ac.1.32 gts totally to an extent of Ac.2.34 gts (in a compact block) situated at Burgampad Revenue Village and Burgampad Mandal, Khammam District within the following boundaries:

     East   :      R & B Road





     West :        Land of Executant
     North :       Land of Nagothu Joji Rayanna & Rajaiah
     South:        Land of G.Padmavathi

6. Thus, the suit schedule property is in Survey

Nos.455/14/a, 455/17/e and 455/17/aa.

7. On the other hand, the retail petroleum outlet is

sought to be set up in land admeasuring 2420 square

yards in Survey No.455/13, 455/13A and 455/13AA

situated at Laxmipuram Village, Burgampahad Mandal,

Khammam District.

8. In the face of the objection lodged by the appellant,

District Collector, Khammam, sought for a report from the

Sub Collector, Paloncha, as to whether the two plots of

land are one and the same or different plots of land. Sub

Collector in his report dated 15.09.2016 stated that

Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, was

requested to conduct survey and demarcation. But he

expressed his inability to do so on the ground that the land

had not been subdivided nor incorporated in the village

map. That apart, no supplementary setwar was issued.

9. In the above backdrop, the Sub Collector recorded

that in the absence of survey and subdivision record

pertaining to land in Survey No.455/13, the alternative

remedy available was physical demarcation of the

boundaries. It was noted that in the present case both the

parties are agitating over the eastern side of the boundary

to proposed petroleum outlet. Revenue authorities cannot

be substituted for the civil courts. Therefore, view was

expressed that parties may have to approach the

competent civil court for resolution of the dispute.

10. On due consideration, learned Single Judge came to

a definite finding that the two plots of land are distinct and

separate. Learned Single Judge held as follows:

6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the NOC that was granted in favour of the eighth respondent by the third respondent through proceedings, dated 24.06.2017 is in respect of the land admeasuring 2420 square yards situated in Survey

Nos.455/13, 455/13A and 455/13AA of Laxmipuram Village, H/o. Burgampahad Revenue Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The operation of the said NOC was interdicted through the impugned memo at the instance of the seventh respondent herein on the ground that a civil suit filed in O.S.No.43 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Khammam, is pending for adjudication filed by the seventh respondent against the petitioners 2, 3 and the eighth respondent herein. The said O.S.No.43 of 2015 was filed seeking relief of declaration of title and injunction in respect of land situated in Survey Nos.455/14/a, 455/17/3 (455/17/aa) and 455/17/aa to an extent of Ac.0.08 gts, Ac.0.34 ¼ gts and Acs.2.34 gts respectively. The land, which is the subject matter of NOC granted in favour of the eighth respondent herein, is totally different than the land, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.43 of 2015. The NOC is granted only in respect of land, which is admittedly owned by the petitioners 2 and 3 herein. It is not the case of any of the respondents, much less respondents 9 to 12 that they have got any right or claim over the land, which is the subject matter of NOC. At the most, there appears to be a dispute with regard to the boundary in between the land of the petitioners 2 and 3 and the land of the respondents 7 and 9 to 11. Without there being any claim over the land, which is the subject matter of NOC, the seventh respondent has challenged the NOC granted for the said land in favour of the eighth respondent for the reasons best known, the seventh respondent,

represented by his Power of Attorney Holder, approached the second respondent by submitting a representation and the second respondent, without putting any of the effected parties i.e. either the eighth respondent or the petitioners herein issued the impugned memo finally disposing of the matter by keeping the NOC in abeyance till the disposal of O.S.No.43 of 2015. The second respondent failed to assign any reasons for passing the impugned order, that too behind the back of the interested persons. It is also not seen from the impugned memo, the source of power in exercise of which the said impugned memo came to be issued. For these reasons alone the impugned memo is liable to be set aside as the same is arbitrary on the face of it and in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. Be that as it may, as already noted above, the land, which is the subject matter of NOC and the land which is the subject matter of O.S.No.43 of 2015, are totally different and admittedly, the respondents 7, 9 to 12 have no claim over the land, which is the subject matter of NOC. In the absence of any claim, right or title over the subject land, the seventh respondent or the respondents 9 to 12 have got any locus to assail the NOC granted in favour of the eighth respondent herein for the purpose of establishing a retail outlet in the land belonging to the petitioners 2 and 3 herein. For this reason also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. The seventh respondent failed to file any counter during his lifetime and the respondents 9 to 11, who are the legal representatives of the seventh respondent, also failed to file a counter or enter appearance in spite of service of notice in this Writ Petition. However, as noted above, the twelfth respondent herein claiming to be the purchaser of the land from the ninth respondent, came on record by filing an implead application in the Writ Petition contending that he has purchased the land situated in Survey Nos.455/32/1 and 455/17/AA admeasuring Acs.4.20 gts and Ac.1.32 gts respectively of Burgampahad Village and Mandal under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.2022 and further stating that he is also taking steps to come on record in pending O.S.No.43 of 2015.

9. As already noted above, the subject matter of NOC and O.S.No.43 of 2015 are totally different and they are also situated in different survey numbers as well. Taking the claim of the twelfth respondent as it is, the land claimed to have been purchased by the twelfth respondent is in different survey numbers than the survey numbers which are the subject matter of NOC and O.S.No.43 of 2015. Even assuming that the twelfth respondent purchased the said land covered by a registered sale deed referred to above from the ninth respondent, the twelfth respondent cannot claim any right or title or interest over the land, which is the subject matter of NOC, as the land, which is said to have been purchased by the twelfth respondent is totally

different than the land, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.43 of 2015. Thus, under no circumstances, the respondents 7 and 9 to 12 herein can be said to be a person aggrieved by the NOC granted in favour of the eighth respondent herein. Hence, the twelfth respondent has no right to question the NOC granted in favour of the eighth respondent herein and equally the respondents 7 and 9 to 11. As a matter of fact, the respondents 7 and 9 to 11 have chosen not to contest the Writ Petition.

10. In the light of the above, absolutely there is no justification for the second respondent herein to issue the impugned memo and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned memo, dated 16.02.2018 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed, accordingly.

11. From the above, it is seen that learned Single Judge

had traced the litigation history of O.S.No.43 of 2015.

Learned Single Judge noted that the original plaintiff i.e.,

predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 had

approached the Special Chief Secretary through General

Power of Attorney holder against the NOC granted by the

District Collector, despite pendency of the civil suit with a

status quo order. Learned Single Judge also noted that

respondent No.12 (in appeal) had sold the land situated in

Survey Nos.455/17AA and 455/32/1 admeasuring Ac.1.32

guntas and Acs.4.20 guntas respectively in favour of the

appellant on 12.10.2022. But learned Single Judge found