Telangana High Court

M.Padmavathi vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 September, 2023

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                  I.A.No.1 of 2022
                  I.A.No.2 of 2022
                          &
                  I.A.No.4 of 2022
                         IN
           WRIT PETITION No.22023 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel appearing

for the petitioners; Sri K.Lakshmi Manohar, learned

Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner-

Association and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing

Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

2. 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner-Association had filed

the aforesaid Writ Petition No.22023 of 2021 to declare the

action of the respondent No.3 herein in not passing any

appropriate orders on the representation dated 27.04.2021

submitted by it with a request to develop the park in the

land admeasuring 800 Sq.Yards situated at Sy. Nos.12,13,

14 and 15 of Medipalli revenue village, Medipalli Mandal,

Medchal-Malkarjigiri District, as illegal and for a

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

consequential direction to 3rd respondent herein to take

steps for developing of the park in the said colony.

3. The said writ petition came up for hearing on

8.11.2021, on which date, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent herein

had produced written instructions of 3rd respondent. In

the said written instructions it is specifically mentioned

that the said 800 Sq.Yards of land was earmarked for the

purpose of park area, there is a compound wall separating

600 Sq.yards from the rest of 200 Sq.Yards and that they

have no objection for development of park or children's

park in 800 Sq.Yards of land. It was further stated that in

due course they will see that it is available for colony

residents and general public, and due to shortage of funds,

they are unable to develop the park; and that as and when

funds are available, the 3rd respondent will develop the

park.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

4. The said written instructions were placed on record.

Considering the said written instructions this Court, vide

order dated 08.11.2021, this Court disposed of the said

writ petition directing the 3rd respondent herein to take

necessary steps to protect the above said land earmarked

for park from illegal encroachments and the 3rd

respondent herein shall develop the said park as and

when funds are available, preferably within a period of six

months from the date of said order.

5. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to recall

the order dated 08.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.22023 of

2021; I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to suspend the said order,

and I.A.No.3 of 2022 is filed to implead the petitioners as

respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the writ petition as well as in

I.A.No.1 of 2021.

6. This Court, vide order dated.29.06.2022 allowed the

I.A.No.3 of 2022, and granted interim suspension of the

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

order dated 08.11.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in

W.P.No.22023 of 2021.

7. The 1st respondent-Association had filed I.A.No. 4 of

2022 to vacate the interim order dated 29.06.2022 passed

in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS:

8. Originally one Smt.Mogulla Yadamma was the

absolute owner and possessor of Ac.5.03 guntas of land in

Sy.Nos.12,13, 14 and 15 of Mediaplly village of Ranga

Reddy District. She had sold the property to late Odapalli

Pandurangam under registered sale deed No.6137 of 1978

dated 09.01.1978.

9. During his life time, Sri O.Pandu Rangam had

converted the said land into residential plots (77 in number

of different sizes ) by obtaining lay out from the then

Gram Panchayath dated 18.09.1979. He had sold only

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

few plots to most of his relatives through General Power of

Attorney holder and ownership of the remaining plots are

still with his legal hires i.e. Smt. Manjula Odapalli and Sri

Dilto Purcnahdnadra Odapalli. In the said lay out, an

extent of 200 Sq.Yards was earmarked for park while 1412

Sq.Yards were left for temple, which is still in an open

place, meant for temple. The said Pandurangam Odapalli

died on 26.10.2009 leaving behind the aforesaid legal

heirs. After his demise, the aforesaid legal heirs have

been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining plots.

10. 1st petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute

owner and possessor of plot No.18/A admeasuring 200

Sq.yards covered by Sy.Nso.12 to 15 of Mediapalli village of

Ghatkesear Mandal of Ranga Reddy District on the

strength of sale deed No.10725 of 2014 dated 30.12.2014.

Likewise the 2nd petitioner is claiming that she is the owner

and possessor of plot No.25/A admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards

of very same survey numbers and village on the strength of

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

registered sale deed No.10726 of 2014 dated.30.12.2014.

The 3rd petitioner is also claiming that he is the owner and

possessor of plot No.24/A admeasuring 200 Sq.yards of

very same survey numbers and village on the strength of

document Nos.10727/2014 dated 30.12.2014.

11. All the above three petitioners are claiming that they

have purchased the aforesaid plots from Smt.Manjula

Odapalli and another. It is further contention of the

petitioners that they have obtained permission from

Mediplli Gram Panchayath for construction of compound

wall along with two rooms. Though they have obtained

permission for construction of two rooms and compound

wall they have raised only compound wall. They have filed

a suit vide O.S.No.28 of 2015 against the then Gram

Panchayath, Mediaplly, for perpetual injunction, and the

said suit was decreed on 16.05.2016. They have also

applied for regularization of their plots under Land

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

Regularization Scheme in 2020 and they have also paid

necessary charges.

12. According to the petitioners, on 02.04.2022, the 3rd

respondent/Municipality deputed its Officers along with

the workers and a JCB and illegally demolished the

compound wall. They came to know that, under the guise

of order dated 08.11.2021 passed by this Court, the 3rd

respondent is trying to convert the said property in to the

park. They have submitted representation dated

04.04.2022 to the 3rd respondent along with the documents

requesting them not to proceed with any construction

activities over the said property. On receipt of the said

representation, the 3rd respondent had fixed the date of

hearing as 02.05.2022. According to them, only 200

Sq.Yards of land was earmarked for the purpose of park,

and 1452 Sq.Yards for the purpose of temple. Even then,

the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is trying to grab the

aforesaid 800 Sq.Yards, and with the said intention, they

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

have filed the present Writ Petition and obtained order

without making the petitioners as the parties to said writ

petition. With the said submittions they have sought to

recall the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by this court in

WP No.22023 of 2021.

13. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner has filed

common-counter affidavit in the aforesaid Interlocutory

Applications, contending as follows:

The petitioners 1 to 3 are close relatives of executors

of the aforesaid sale deeds viz. Smt.Manjula Odapalli and

Sri Dilto Purnacandra Odapalli. The 1st petitioner is the

father-in-law, petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law and

petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of Dilto Purnachandra

Odapalli. There are no house plots i.e. Plot N.18/A, 24/A

and 25/A in the original lay out approved by then Gram

Panchayath and they were illegally carved out of the public

park area in order to grab it. The petitioners herein have

created the aforesaid sale deeds on 30.12.2014 and filed

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

O.S.N.28 of 2015 against the then Gram Panchayath,

Medipally and the Gram Panchayath had filed written

statement contending that in the layout in respect of

Sy.Nos.12 to 15, an extent of 1452 Sq.Yards and 800

Sq.Yards were earmarked for open space for utilization of

public purpose and that the said property, owned and

possessed by them, is part and parcel of the said extent.

However, they have not produced any evidence oral or

documentary, therefore the Court below decreed the suit

on 16.05.2016.

The 1st respondent-Association is not a party to the

said suit and the same is not binding on it. The then Gram

Panchyath, Medipalli has erected a board by mentioning

that 800 Sq.Yards of land was earmarked for park area.

The District Collector, (PW), Ranga Reddy District, vide

letter Memo dated 17.12.2014, directed the Panchayath-

Secretary, Medipally to take necessary action for protection

of park places in Sy.Nos.12,13,14, 15 and 39 of Medipalli

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

Gram Panchayath. Since the then Secretary of Gram

Panchayath failed to protect the same, disciplinary action

was initiated against her. The temple was constructed by

Smt.Mogulla Yadamma and her husband Mogulla Somaiah

much before purchase of Ac.4.31 gunts of land by late

Pandurangam Odapalli in the year 1978 itself. Thus, the

petitioners herein, by creating aforesaid three documents,

trying to grab the open space earmarked for public purpose

i.e. park. Therefore, there is no need to recall the order

dated 08.11.2021.

ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT

14. The aforesaid facts would reveal that, according to

the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner, an extent of 800

Sq.Yards of land was earmarked for the purpose of

development of park. In proof of the same, they have filed

information furnished by the 3rd respondent-Municipality

dated 25.03.2021 under Right to Information Act stating

that an extent of 800 Sq.Yards is a public Park in Sri

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

Venkateswara Colony, Medipalli, and the aforesaid layout

bears the signatures of officials of Gram Panchayath,

Medipally and the Executive Officer. In the said layout

1452 Sq.Yards was earmarked for the purpose of temple

and 800 Sq.Yards was earmarked for the purpose of park.

There are no plot Nos.18/A, 25/A and 24/A in the said

layout. According to the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner, it

has submitted representation to the 3rd

respondent/Municipality dated 24.04.2021 requesting to

protect said land earmarked for park area and to develop

the same.

15. Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for 3rd respondent-Municipality, had produced

written instructions of the said Municipality, wherein it is

stated that aforesaid 800 Sq.Yards of land is earmarked

for the purpose of park area, but the compound wall is

separating 600 Sq.Yards from the rest of 200 Sq.Yards.

They have no objection to develop the park or children's

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

park in the said area of 800 Sq.Yards and due to shortage

of funds they are not in a position to develop the same.

Considering the written instructions, this court directed

the 3rd respondent to take all the necessary steps to protect

the land earmarked for park from illegal encroachments,

shall develop the park as and when funds are available,

preferably within a period of six months. Thus, according

to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and 3rd

respondent/Municipality, 800 Sq.Yards of land was

earmarked in the aforementioned survey numbers for the

purpose of park.

16. It is relevant to note that vide Memo

dated.17.12.2014, the District Collector (PW), Rang Reddy

Distinct directed the Extension Officer (PR&RD),

Ghatkeswar Mandal to take necessary steps for protection

of the park places in Sy.Nos.12,13,14,15 and 39 of Gram

Panchayath Municipality as per G.O.Ms.No.188, duly

erecting notice boards.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

17. The Director, Panchayath Raj and Rural

Employment, Hyderabad had issued a charge Memo dated

19.06.2015 to Smt. P.Shobha Rani, the then Panchayath

Secretary, Grade.I, Gram Panchayath, Medipalli on the

allegation of not protecting the aforesaid park place in

Sy.Nos.12 to 15 and that she had encouraged illegal

encroachments. She had submitted a report on 29.10.2014

stating that no park place is encroached.

18. Perusal of the decree and judgment dated 06.05.2015

in O.S.No.28 of 2015 passed by learned I-Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy would reveal that it was filed by

the petitioners herein against the then Gram Panchyath,

Medipally. Though the written statement was filed by the

then Gram Panchayath, it did not let-in either oral or

documentary evidence. The petitioners herein filed

certified copies judgment and decree, certified copy of four

sale deeds, including their sale deeds, and original

permission along with sanctioned plan dated 09.03.2000.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

The 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner is not a party to the

said suit. In the written statement, the then Gram

Panchayath specifically contended that the land situated in

Sy.Nos.12 to 15 are made into layout since long time and

all the plots were sold away by its owner leaving 10% of the

land to the then Gram Panchayath, Medipally for public

purpose, i.e. an extent of 1452 Sq.Yars of land earmarked

marked to temple and 800 Sq.Yards was earmarked for

park, and the layout granted by the Gram Panchayath

would reveal the said fact. In view of the escalation of land

cost, the petitioners herein are trying to grab the property

earmarked for park and they have obtained registered sale

deeds on their names in the month of December, 2014.

Since the layout was made long back, he has kept 10% of

land to Gram Panchayath for utilization of public purposes.

However, the then Gram Panchayath has not let-in any

oral or documentary evidence and therefore the court

below, considering the evidence available on record,

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

decreed the suit. Thus, the said judgment and decree was

not on consideration of entire facts and record.

19. The petitioners herein have also filed layout plan of

then Gram Panchayath, Medipalli. Perusal of the same

would reveal that it was dated 18.09.1979 and it also bears

the signature of the then Gram Panchayath. As per the

said layout, an extent of 200 Sq.Yards of land was

earmarked for park and 1452 Sq.Yards was earmarked for

temple. There are plot Nos.18/A, 24/A and 25/A in the

said layout. Except for the said plots, there are no

by-numbers to other plots.

20. Referring the same, Sri K.Laksmi Manohar, learned

Counsel appearing for 1st respondent-Association would

submit that the petitioners herein have created the

aforesaid layout plan and also aforesaid three sale deeds in

collusion with their close relatives, viz., wife and son of late

Pandurangam Odepally.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

21. It is also relevant to note that in the counter filed by

the 1st respondent-Association, it has specifically

contended as follows:

(a) Copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.6698/1997 dated 05.11.1997 executed by Pandurangam Odapalli S/o. Late O.Rama Swamy in favour of K.Arua W/o. K.Rama Swamy, transferring plot N.18 is filed herewith as Ex.P5. In the schedule of property, north side is mentioned as park, and not as lot No.18/A, as is being claimed by the petitioners/respondents 3 to 5.

(b) Copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.2837/2005 dated 29.03.2005 executed by Mohammed Sami Khalid S/o Dr.Mohammed Abdul Mannan, represented by his GPA Holder Dr.Mohammed Abdul Mannan S/o. Mohammed Abdul Kareem in favour of Smt.Manjula Odapalli W/o. Pandurangam Odalli, transferring plot No.25 is filed herewith as Ex.P6. In the schedule of property, north side is mentioned as park, and not as plot No.25/A, as

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

is being claimed by the petitioners/respondents No.3 to 5.

(c) Copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.5015/1998 dted.04.07.1998 executed by Pandurangam Odapalli S/o. Late O.Rama Swamy in favour of K.Prameela W/o.

K.Pradhumna Reddy, transferring plot N.24 is filed herewith as Ex.P.7. In the schedule of property, north side is mentioned as park, but on ground plot No.23 is situated on north side. In the schedule it is mentioned that the on south side plot No.23 is situated. So it is obvious that in the said sale deed north side and south side were interchanged by mistake. Also taking into consideration the registered sale deed in respect of plot No.19 it is obvious that there was park in existing on the southern side of plot No.24 and not lot No.24/A, as is being claimed by the petitioners/respondents No.3 to 5.

(d) Copy of registered sale deed bearing document N.5106/1998 dated 04.07.1998 executed by Pandurangam Odapalli S/o. late O.Rama

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

Swamy in favour of G.Padmavathi W/o. Sri Ramchander Goud, transferring plot No.19 is filed herewith as Ex.P8. In the schedule of property, south side is mentioned as park.

It also filed the copies of the aforesaid sale deeds in proof of

the same.

22. As per sale deed bearing No.6317 of 1978 late

Odapalli Pandurangam purchased only Ac.4.31 guntas in

Sy.Nos.12 to 15. Copy of the said sale deed is filed by the

petitioners vide Ex.R4. In the recital of the said sale deed at

para No.2 it is clearly mentioned that:

"There is temple lying on the said lands abutting the Hyderbad-Bhongir Road in an area of 12 guntas from the sale".

23. So, the property purchased under the above

document was 4.31 guntas in the aforesaid survey

numbers, but Ac.5.03 guntas as claimed by the pettioners.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

24. The above said facts would reveal that there is title

dispute with regard to aforesaid plot numbers i.e. Plot No.

18/A, 24/A and 25/A. In the reply filed by the petitioners

to the counter filed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner,

they admitted their relationship with Manjula Odapalli

and Dilto Purnachandra Odapalli, wife and son of late

Pandurangam Odapalli, but according to them the said

relationship does not in any way affect their title, in-as-

much-as, there is no such law prohibiting transfer of

property between the relatives.

25. On the representation of the petitioners dated

04.04.2022, the 3rd respondent had issued notice dated

11.04.2022 requesting the petitioners to appear before

him, along with the documentary evidence, for hearing. As

stated above, there are serious and complicated questions

of facts, which even 3rd respondent, cannot decide.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

26. Making an application under Land Regularization

Scheme and obtaining permission dated 09.03.2000 from

the then Gram Panchayath, Medipalli will not confer any

title on the petitioners. According to the 1st respondent-

Association, the petitioners have obtained the same in

collusion with the then Secretary of Gram Panchayath,

Medipally. It is also not in dispute that disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against Smt.P.Shobha Rani,

then Panchayath Secretary, on the allegation with regard to

the aforesaid property.

27. In para No.9 of the reply affidavit, the petitioners

have stated that "may be relflection in the said registered

sale deeds one of the boundary as park, a mistake, and the

1st respondent/petitioner is trying to take advantage of the

same".

Thus there are serious and complicated questions of

facts and there is cloud over the title of the petitioners.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

28. Though layout was made on 18.09.1999, Sri

O.Pandurangam died on 26.10.2009, the petitioners have

obtained the above sale deeds only on 30.12.2014. In the

layout furnished by the 3rd respondent-Municipality, nder

Right to Information Act, there are no by-umbers to any

plot, whereas in the layout filed by the petitioners there

are by-numbers to only three plots which they are

claiming. Though this court is having power to consider

the facts as held by the Apex Court in ABL International

Ltd. Vs.Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India

Limited1, but certainly not the serious/complicated

questions of facts. As complicated questions of facts are

involved in this case, this court cannot consider the same.

29. 1st respondent is not a party to O.S.No.28 of 2015.

In the said suit the then Gram Panchayath, Medipalli has

not let-in any evidence either oral or documentary. The

then Gram Panchayath merged in 3rd respondent-

[(2004) 3 SCC 553

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

Municipality. There are serious and complicated questions

of facts in this case, and there is title dispute between the

petitioners, 1st respondent-Association and 3rd respondent,

which this Court cannot decide under Article 226 of

Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners have to

approach the competent jurisdictional civil court to decide

the title dispute, since there is a cloud over the title of the

petitioners over the aforesaid three plots.

30. Now, the only grievance of the petitioners is that

under the guise of aforesaid order dated 08.11.2021 the 3rd

respondent has demolished the compund wall and trying

to develop the park, therefore, they are seeking to recall the

aforesaid order.

31. As stated above, this court cannot decide the title

dispute between the parties. Therefore, liberty is granted

to the petitioners to approach the competent jurisdictional

court to decide the title of the petitioners.

KL,J I.A.Nos.1,2 and 4 of 2022 in W.P.No.22023 of 2021

32. In view of the above discussion, this court is not

inclined to recall the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by this