Telangana High Court
Sri A.Rugesh vs The State Of Telangana on 6 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.916 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Bidarkar Gopal, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This intra court appeal arises out of an order dated
26.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which
the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely
W.P.No.5266 of 2014, has been disposed of along with
other writ petitions.
4. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants,
relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.
5. Appellants claim to be the owners and in possession
of the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 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 No.2 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 land
measuring Ac.1.31 guntas of Survey No.865/1 is in
possession of the appellants. According to the appellants,
survey was conducted and the land in Survey No.865/1
was found to be in possession of the appellants. 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
appellants in Survey No.865/1. The grievance of the
appellants is that they have raised construction on the
land in question and the respondents, without any
authority, are trying to interfere with the possession of the
land of the appellants. Thereupon, the appellants
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 hereby 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 more
particularly trying to dispossess of the petitioners from
their land measuring Ac.1.31 gts. in Sy.No.865/1,
Medchal Village and Mandal, R.R.District, under the
guise of laying the road through the schedule land
without initiating any proceedings as illegal, null and
void without following due process of law violative of
Article 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and a
consequently direction to the respondents to drop all
further proceedings in this regard and pass such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and to pass
such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the
case."
6. Thus, the appellants, in substance, sought the relief
of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering
with the possession of the appellants 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 petition. 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, this appeal.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits
that the appellants had filed the writ petition 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 Senior Counsel for the appellants and have
perused the record.
11. The contention that in the writ petition the appellants
had prayed for a direction to decide the representation is
factually incorrect, as we have extracted the prayer in the
writ petition, 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
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
2 (2021) 6 SCC 771
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.
13. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is modified.
14. In the result, the appeal is 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
06.08.2024
Note: Issue C.C today.
B/o.
vs
