Telangana High Court
Sri Radheshyam Sharma vs The National Highway Authority Of India on 5 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.905, 906, 907, 911, 912, 913, 917
and 918 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. B.Shashidhar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel
for the National Highways Authority of India for the
respondents No.1 to 3 in W.A.Nos.905, 906 and 917 of
2024.
Mr. L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
Limited for the respondents No.2 to 4 in W.A.No.907 of
2024; for the respondent No.3 in W.A.No.911 of 2024; for
the respondents No.2 to 5 in W.A.Nos.912 and 913 of
2024; and for the respondents No.4 and 5 in W.A.No.918 of
2024.
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India for the respondent No.4 in W.A.Nos.905
and 917 of 2024.
Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for
Home for the respondent No.6 in W.A.Nos.907, 912, 913
and 918 of 2024.
Mr. E.Venkata Reddy, learned Government Pleader
for Municipal Administration & Urban Development
Department for the respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.911 and
918 of 2024.
Mr. Ananthasen Reddy, learned Government Pleader
for Industries & Commerce and Mines & Geology
Department for the respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.907, 912
and 913 of 2024.
Ms. T.V.Sudha, learned counsel representing
Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for the
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority for the
respondent No.2 in W.A.Nos.911 and 918 of 2024.
Mr. K.Ram Chandra Reddy, learned counsel
representing Mr. B.Jagan Madhava Rao, learned counsel
for the respondent No.7 in W.A.Nos.907, 912, 913 of 2024
and for the respondent No.3 in W.A.No.918 of 2024.
Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel representing
Ms. K.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the respondents
No.8 to 15 in W.A.Nos.907, 912, 913 of 2024; and for the
respondents No.7 to 14 in W.A.No.918 of 2024.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. These intra court appeals arise out of a common
order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
by which the writ petitions preferred by the appellants have
been disposed of.
4. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants,
relevant facts need mention which are stated infra. For the
facility of reference, facts from W.A.No.905 of 2024 are
being referred to.
5. Appellant claims to be the owner and in possession of
the land admeasuring Ac.0.17 guntas of Survey No.865/1
of Medchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is
averred in the writ petition that the father of the appellant
had purchased, vide registered sale deed, the land
measuring Acs.15.22 guntas in Survey No.865 of Medchal
Village. It is further averred that out of the aforesaid land,
land measuring Acs.13.31 guntas was acquired by the
Land Acquisition Officer and an award was passed on
11.11.1983. It is pleaded that the consequently land
measuring Ac.1.31 guntas was left. It is averred that the
land acquired by the authorities under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, is the land bearing Survey
No.865/2, which is situated behind the land of the
appellant in Survey No.865/1. The grievance of the
appellant is that the respondents, without any authority,
are trying to interfere with the possession of the land of the
appellant. Thereupon, the appellant approached the Court
by filing the writ petition in which the following prayer was
made:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, it is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in illegally
attempting to dispossess the petitioner and his family
members from his land admeasuring 17 (seventeen)
guntas in Survey No.865/1 of Medchal Village and
Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, without initiating
acquisition proceedings and without awarding
compensation in consequence thereof, required by the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act XXX of 2013, and therefore, to direct
the respondents to not to dispossess the petitioner from
his aforesaid land without acquiring and without
awarding compensation therefore as per the provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
XXX of 2013, and pass such other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
6. Thus, the appellant, in substance, sought the relief of
injunction restraining the respondents from interfering
with the possession of the appellant over the land in
question.
7. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, held that the
adjudication of the lis between the parties requires
adjudication of disputed questions of fact which cannot be
gone into in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
8. The learned Single Judge therefore disposed of the
writ petitions. However, the learned Single Judge
continued the interim order dated 24.02.2014 restraining
the respondents from interfering with the possession of the
appellants in respect of the land in question for a further
period of six weeks. Hence, these appeals.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants had filed the writ petitions seeking a direction to
the respondents to decide the representation. It is further
submitted that the appellants are in possession of the land
in question in Survey No.865/1, whereas the land in
Survey No.865/2 has been acquired by the authorities,
which is situated behind the land which is in possession of
the appellants. It is therefore, submitted that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the
respondents be restrained from interfering with the
possession of the appellants over the land in question.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the
record.
11. The contention that in the writ petitions the
appellants had prayed for a direction to decide the
representation is factually incorrect, as we have extracted
the prayer in one of the writ petitions, which is only for an
injunction restraining the respondents from interfering
with the possession of the appellants over the land bearing
Survey No.865/1. The appellants, in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are seeking the
relief of injunction. The grant of relief of injunction
requires adjudication of questions of fact, namely whether
the appellants are in possession of the land bearing Survey
No.865/1 and whether the respondents are interfering with
the possession of the appellants over the land in question.
It is trite law that the questions of fact cannot be
adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India (See Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari
Shivam 1). Similar view was taken in Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2 and it has been
held that if in case disputed questions of fact arise for
determination in a writ petition, the High Court may
decline to exercise the writ jurisdiction.
12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we agree
with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to file a suit
for injunction, if so advised. Needless to state that in case
the appellants file a suit for injunction, the observations
made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall
not operate to the prejudice of the appellants and the suit
filed by the appellants shall be decided on its own merits.
The interim order granted by the learned Single Judge
during the course of the proceedings on 24.02.2014 is
extended for a further period of six weeks to enable the
appellants to file the civil suit.
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
2 (2021) 6 SCC 771
13. To the aforesaid extent, the common order passed by
the learned Single Judge is modified.
14. In the result, the appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
05.08.2024
Note: Issue C.C today.
B/o.
vs
