Sri Mannaram Nagaraju vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2113 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Mannaram Nagaraju vs The State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2024

Author: T. Vinod Kumar

Bench: T. Vinod Kumar

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                 WRIT PETITION No.12169 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban

Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M. Phanindra

Bhargav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.2 & 3 and Sri. S. Krishna Sharma, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of official respondent Nos.4 to 6 and

perused the record.

2. By the present Writ Petition filed, the petitioner seeks for

issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for

not protecting the land that has been conveyed to it by the

unofficial respondents under "Gift Settlement of site for public

charitable purpose in favour of the local body" i.e., Village

Secretariat, Chattanpally,for obtaining layout permission, vide

registered document No.7637/2004 dated 21.12.2004 to an

extent of 3630 square yards in Sy. No.649 situated in the

Village and Grampanchayat of Chattanpally, without

considering the representation submitted by the petitioner

dated 10.11.2020, as being illegal, arbitrary, violation of

provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

3. Petitioner contends that the unofficial respondents while

obtaining layout permission in respect of land to an extent of

Ac.3.29 gts. has executed a Gift Settlement in favour of Village

Secretariat, Chattanpally (Grampanchayat at the relevant point

of time) which now stands upgraded into the Municipality; that

the respondent No.2 is not taking steps to protect the aforesaid

land gifted in favour of the Village Secretariat; and that the

official respondent in collusion with the unofficial respondents

while not taking any steps to protect the said land are allowing

the unofficial respondents to undertake construction on the

said land belonging to the Village Secretariat.

4. Petitioner further contends that despite the petitioner

approaching the respondent authority and submitting a

representation dated 10.11.2020, no action has been taken

thereon.

5. Petitioner further contends that though the said property

vested with the Village Secretariat, on account of 2nd respondent

not taking steps to protect the same, illegal constructions being

raised in the land to an extent of 3630 square yards equivalent

to 30 guntas gifted in favour of Village Secretariat, Chattanpally.

6. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

a separate counter-affidavit on behalf of unofficial respondent

Nos.4 to 6 are filed.

7. By the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent

Nos.2 and 3, while not disputing the claim of the petitioner of

the unofficial respondent executing a gift deed in favour of the

Village Secretariat, Chattanpally in respect of land in Sy. No.649

of Chattanpally village, Shadnagar Municipality, it is contended

that a layout in Sy. No.649 of Chattanpally village was

developed in an area to an extent of 18067.7 square yards

(Ac.3.29 gts.) wherein 14228.9 square yards was converted as

residential plots; an area of 3505.3 square yards was left for

roads; and an area of 333.5 square yards site was left as open

space for public use.

8. By the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the claim of the

petitioner of the authorities not taking steps in protecting the

land to an extent of 3630 square yards gifted for public

charitable purpose is factually incorrect inasmuch as only 333.5

square yards site is earmarked for public purpose and the

remaining extent of land of 3505.3 square yards is used for

laying internal roads in the layout.

9. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended on behalf

of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that as per the existing ground

situation an area of 236.2 square yards of open space out of

333.5 square yards of open site earmarked for public purpose,

was affected under bypass road of National Highway 44 wherein

a road was laid, thus leaving only an area of 97.3 square yards

of open space and that the respondent authorities are taking all

measures to protect the said area. By stating as above in the

counter-affidavit, the respondent authority had enclosed a copy

of the proceeding dated 09.08.2007 addressed by the Tahsildar

to the competent authority (Land Acquisition) and Joint

Collector, Mahabubnagar for payment of compensation to the

persons mentioned therein along with statement of showing the

valuation of residential plot and open land in Sy. No.649 of

Chattanpally village of Farooqnagar Mandal.

10. The unofficial respondents, by their counter-affidavit filed

have claimed that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have undertaken

the development of land to an extent of Ac.3.29.3 gts. equivalent

to 18067.7 square yards in Sy. No.649 of Chattanpally village,

Farooqnagar Mandal into residential housing plot wherein land

for an extent of 14228.9 square yards was converted into

residential plots and an area of 3505.3 square yards was left for

roads and an area of 333.5 square yards was left as open space

for public use.

11. By the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the unofficial

respondents have executed a registered gift settlement deed

dated 21.12.2004 in favour of Village Secretariat for the land

admeasuring 3630 squares in Sy. No.649 of Chattanpally village

which includes the land used for the purpose of roads

admeasuring 3505.3 square yards as well as the area of open

space left for charitable purpose and thus the claim of the

petitioner of the respondent authorities not taking steps to

protect the land admeasuring 3630 square yards is not correct

and the said allegation is being made with ulterior motives.

12. By the counter-affidavit, the unofficial respondents

further contended that out of the open space of 333.5 square

yards left for public use, an area of 236.2 square yards was

acquired by the Government for laying bypass road and

upgradation of National Highway 7 and similarly open space of

150 square yards out 3505.3 square yards left for roads covered

by the gift settlement deed executed in favour of Village

Secretariat, Gram Panchayat was affected in laying of bypass

road and was acquired by the Government.

13. By the counter-affidavit, the unofficial respondents

further claimed that subsequent to the acquisition for laying of

bypass road, an extent of 97.3 square yards of open space area

is remaining out of park area and 3335.3 square yards of road

area.

14. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that the

petitioner is misleading this Court by stating that total area of

3630 square yards in Sy. No.649 of Chattanpally is gifted for

public charitable purpose, while in actual the said extent of

land includes the land which is used for laying roads in the

layout and only an extent of 333.5 square yards is meant as

open land for public use which now on account of formation of a

National Highway is reduced to 97.3 square yards.

15. By the counter-affidavit, the unofficial respondents

further contended that the respondents upon development of

the plots in the layout have sold all the plots and at present

have no personal interest over the said plots.

16. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that the

present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for his

personal vendetta by suppressing true facts and making

baseless allegations on the respondents inasmuch as the

unofficial respondents have never attempted to lay any illegal

construction of sell the same.

17. By the counter-affidavit, the respondents further

contended that the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition

in his personal capacity and not in the capacity of public

interest and thus, has no locus standi to maintain the present

Writ Petition as nowhere he is pleaded infringement of

fundamental right or he is suffering personal damage to invoke

the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

18. In support of the above submission, the petitioner has

placed reliance on the decisions reported in Vinoy Kumar v.

State of U.P. 1 and AyaaubkhanNoorkhan Pathan 2.

19. In reply, the petitioner contends that while the respondent

admits to the fact of executing a gift settlement deed in favour of

Village Secretariat, Chattanpally to an extent of 3630 square

yards, the claim of the respondent that an area of 3505.3

square yards as being left for roads and 333.5 square yards

being earmarked for open space charitable area would take the

total extent of land to 3838.8 square yards, which as per the

1 (2001) 4 SCC 734 2 (2013) 4 SCC 465

claim of the respondent has been left originally for the aforesaid

purpose to 3838.8 square yards, while as per the registered gift

deed only an area of 3630 square yards has been gifted in

favour of the Village Secretariat.

20. In reply, the petitioner further contended that by

mentioning the aforesaid extent of area, the unofficial

respondents have knocked away land to an extent of 208.8

square yards which otherwise belonged to the Village

Secretariat, Chattanpally.

21. Petitioner, in reply further contends that the 2nd

respondent by filing counter-affidavit though had claimed that

an area of 236.2 square yards having been affected under

bypass road of National Highway 44 from and out of the extent

of 3630 square yards conveyed to it under registered document,

the proceedings dated 09.08.2007 attached to the counter-

affidavit for payment of compensation does not reflect the extent

of land belonging to the Village Secretariat being acquired/taken

for the purpose of National Highway and the compensation

payable/paid for the same.

22. In reply, the petitioner further contends that the 2nd

respondent by counter-affidavit has not mentioned as to

whether the Village Secretariat, Chattanpally has been paid any

compensation for an area of 236.2 square yards affected under

bypass road of National Highway 44.

23. Petitioner further contends that as per the statement

annexed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of 2nd

respondent wherein two plots of the 6th respondent are shown

as having been acquired mentions the extent of the said plots to

the 440 square yards, while as per the measurement of the said

plots in the layout annexed by the unofficial respondents to

their counter-affidavit shows that the extent covered by the

aforesaid plots is much lesser and thus, the unofficial

respondents had claimed and were paid compensation in

respect of land that was gifted in favour of the Village

Secretariat, Chattanpally, which were otherwise covered under

the Land Acquisition.

24. Thus, the petitioner contends that as the 2nd respondent

authority on whom a duty and responsibility is cast under the

provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 as

amended by Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 to protect the

property as well as revenues of the Municipality had failed to

take steps to cause verification of the same by considering the

representation submitted by the petitioner on 10.11.2020 and

thus, the petitioner has a locus standi to maintain the present

Writ Petition as it is on account of the inaction of the official

respondents, a wrongful gain has been obtained by the

unofficial respondents at the cost of the Village Secretariat,

Chattanaplly, which now forms part of the 2nd respondent

Municipality.

25. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

26. Firstly, to deal with the objection of the contesting

unofficial respondents as to the locus of the petitioner to

maintain the present Writ Petition, since the same is not filed as

a public interest litigation and is filed in his individual capacity

without there being any infringement of fundamental rights of

the petitioner, it is to be noted that Article 226 of the

Constitution of India confers powers on the High Court to issue

order or writ for enforcement of any right conferred by Part III

and for any other purpose. Thus, the scope of Writ Petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only

confined for issuing of writ for enforcement of fundamental

right, but is wide enough to include in its ambit power to issue

writ for any other purpose. Since, the petitioner claims that on

account of the action of unofficial respondents in claiming the

land that has been gifted in favour of Village Secretariat,

Chattanpally, as belonging to them for receiving compensation

in land acquisition proceeding beyond their entitlement, would

show that it is on account of inaction or dereliction in discharge

of duties by the 2nd respondent, the same had resulted in loss to

the Village Secretariat giving raise for filing of the present Writ

Petition. Though, the petitioner cannot be considered as person

directly aggrieved on account of such inaction or dereliction in

discharge of duties by the respondent authority, since an

element of public duty is involved on the respondent authority

to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, this

Court is of the view that the objection of the unofficial

respondents as to the petitioner not having locus standi to

maintain the present Writ Petition is without any substance and

is liable to be rejected.

27. At this juncture it is apt to refer to one of the earlier

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of locus

standi to maintain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In the case of GaddeVenkateswara Rao

v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 3 wherein a three judge

bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court headed by Hon'ble Sri

Justice Koka Subbarao (as his Lordship then was) while dealing

with a similar objection held as under:

3 AIR 1966 SC 828 = 1965 SCCOnline SC 25

"8. The first question is whether the appellant had locus standi to file a petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court in Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [(1962) Supp 3 SCR 1, 6] dealing with the question of locus standi of the appellant in that case to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court, observed:

"Article 226 confers a very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and writs of the nature mentioned therein for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. It is, therefore, clear that persons other than those claiming fundamental right can also approach the court seeking a relief thereunder. The Article in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right .... The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified."

Has the appellant a right to file the petition out of which the present appeal has arisen? The appellant is the President of the Panchayat Samithi of Dharmajigudem. The villagers of Dharmajigudem formed a committee with the appellant as President for the purpose of collecting contributions from the villagers for setting up the Primary Health Centre. The said committee collected Rs 10,000 and deposited the same with the Block Development Officer. The appellant represented the village in all its dealings with the Block Development Committee and the Panchayat Samithi in the matter of the location of the Primary Health Centre at Dharmajigudem. His conduct, the acquiescence on the part of the other members of the committee, and the treatment meted out to him by the authorities concerned support the inference that he was authorized to act on behalf of the committee. The appellant was, therefore, a representative of the committee which was in law the trustees of the amounts collected by it from the villagers for a public purpose. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the appellant had the right to maintain the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court held in the decision cited supra that "ordinarily" the petitioner who seeks to file an application under Article 226 of the Constitution should be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the petition. A personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest : it can also relate to an interest of a trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases, as the expression "ordinarily" indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject-matter

thereof. The appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at his instance is, therefore, maintainable."

(emphasis supplied)

28. The aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

been reiterated in the case of M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of

Excise, Kerala 4 held thus:

"13. A recent decision delivered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court (of which one of us is a party -- Sethi, J.) in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das [(2000) 2 SCC 465] after making a survey of the later decisions held thus: (SCC pp. 478-79, para 17)

"17. In the context of public interest litigation, however, the Court in its various judgments has given the widest amplitude and meaning to the concept of locus standi. In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [(1982) 3 SCC 235 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 275] it was laid down that public interest litigation could be initiated not only by filing formal petitions in the High Court but even by sending letters and telegrams so as to provide easy access to court. (See also Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389] and State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College [(1985) 3 SCC 169] on the right to approach the court in the realm of public interest litigation.) In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa [(1991) 4 SCC 54] the Court held that the restricted meaning of aggrieved person and the narrow outlook of a specific injury has yielded in favour of a broad and wide construction in the wake of public interest litigation. The Court further observed that public-spirited citizens having faith in the rule of law are rendering great social and legal service by espousing causes of public nature. They cannot be ignored or overlooked on a technical or conservative yardstick of the rule of locus standi or the absence of personal loss or injury. There has, thus, been a spectacular expansion of the concept of locus standi. The concept is much wider and it takes in its stride anyone who is not a mere 'busybody'."

(emphasis supplied)

4 (2000) 7 SCC 552

29. This principle was also echoed in the case of Ghulam

Qadir v. Special Tribunal and others 5.

30. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir

Ahmed 6 had held thus:

34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 :

AIR 1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1] ; Ram UmeshwariSuthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413] ; GaddeVenkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] ; State of Orissa v. RajasahebChandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 739] ; Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC 696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ).

35.The expression "ordinarily" indicates that this is not a cast- iron rule. It is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject-matter. That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule. The principles enunciated in the English cases noticed above, are not inconsistent with it.

5 (2002) 1 SCC 33 6 (1976) 1 SCC 671

37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) "person aggrieved"; (ii) "stranger"; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold."

(emphasis supplied)

31. A conspectus of the above judicial precedent would lead to

an inevitable conclusion that the scope of Writ Petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only

confined for enforcement of fundamental right, but would also

include the writ which can be issued for any other purpose.

32. Applying the principles as laid down by the aforesaid

decision to the facts of the present case, since it is on account of

unofficial respondents claiming that an area of 3505 Square

yards of the layout, from and out of an area of 18067.76 square

yards having left for roads and 333.5 square yards only as

having been earmarked as open space left for public use (park

area) would make the total extent of land as 3838.5 square

yards, while the gift settlement deed only mentions the area to

be 3630 square yards, thus, there is a short fall of extent of land

of 208.05 square yards of the land that is alleged to have been

gifted in favour of the Village Secretariat, Chattanpally.

33. It is also to be noted that the 2nd respondent by the

counter-affidavit had stated that on ground there is only the

extent of present area of 97.3 square yards available and that

the authority is taking steps to protect the same without

indicating in the counter-affidavit as to what is the extent of

open land belonging to the Village Secretariat, Chattanpally

having been acquired and copy of the relevant proceeding

having not been placed before this Court would show that the

2nd respondent authority had not acted diligently in protecting

the land to an extent of 208.5 square yards of the Village

Secretariat either by verifying the claim of the unofficial

respondents of the area of plots as per the measurements

mentioned in layout while issuing proceedings for payment of

compensation and not acting upon when the same is brought to

the notice of the authority. It is also curious to note that the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

the unofficial respondents are in tandem. In fact, the

information which has to be forthcome from the official

respondents has been mentioned by the unofficial respondents.

The same only goes to show the influence that is being wielded

by the said respondents on the official respondent.

34. Since, the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent

does not answer as to how an area of 236.2 square yards

belonging to the Village Secretariat has been acquired for the

purpose of laying of bypass road of National Highway 44 and

also as to whether any compensation has been received/granted

for the said extent of land, this Court is of the view that the said

counter-affidavit does not disclose the complete facts and is

merely filed to support the case of the unofficial respondents. It

is further evident from the letter dated 09.08.2007 addressed by

the then Tahsildar to the competent authority (Land

Acquisition) and Joint Collector for payment of compensation,

the extent of land of Village Secretariat, Chattanpally does not

find any mention therein.

35. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the

claim of the petitioner that the unofficial respondents having

encroached into the land gifted in favour of Village Secretariat,

Chattanpally, cannot be simply brushed aside. Thus, this

Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent authority is to be

directed to look into the representation submitted by the

petitioner, vide letter dated 10.11.2020 to verify the following

aspects: Firstly, as to whether the claim of the unofficial

respondents that the extent of area of plots acquired under land

acquisition proceedings for the purpose of bypass road of

National Highway 44 is in consonance with the extent of area of

plot as per the layout measurements; Secondly, whether the

unofficial respondents claimed any excess land as belonging to

them being effected by the bypass road of NH 44; thirdly, any

excess claim of compensation is paid out to them; fourthly,

whether the said payment of additional amount relates to the

land that has been gifted in favour of Village Secretariat,

Chattanpally or not; and Finally, in the event of the above

verification showing the unofficial respondent having laid claim

to any part of the land of Village Secretariat, Chattanpally, the

action to recover the amount of compensation otherwise

receivable by the Village Secretariat, Chattanpally (now forming

part of 2nd respondent Municipality) along with appropriate

interests from the date of payment till the date of its recovery,

as the said amount otherwise would be available to the Village

Secretariat/Municipality to be utilized for providing civic

amenities to the residents of Chattanpally.

36. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the

aforesaid direction. However, since the issue relates to the

financial loss caused to the Gram Panchayat/Municipality, this

Court is of the view that a copy of the order is to be marked to

the 1st respondent and also be marked to the concerned District

Collector in order to receive due attention, since powers are

conferred on the District Collector to call for records and take

action under Sections 71 and 74 of Telangana Municipalities

Act, 2019. No order as to costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications if any

shall stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 07.06.2024.

MRKR