Telangana High Court
Koyyada Venkateshwar Goud vs The State Of Telangana, on 1 May, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.12382, 20090, 20230, 24487 of 2020;
17745, 24898 of 2021; 46173, 46210, 46269 of 2022;
1963, 2057, 2070, 23808, 23821, 23823, 23824, 23826, 23835,
23855, 23863, 23875, 23898, 23900, 28215, 28246, 28270,
28273, 28314 and 29088 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is intrinsically
interconnected, they are being taken up and heard together and
disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, these
cases have been divided into two batches i.e, first batch and second
batch.
2. The first batch of cases i.e., W.P.Nos.28215, 23808, 23821,
23823, 23824, 23826, 23835, 23855, 23863, 23875, 23898, 23900,
28246, 28270, 28273, 28314, and 29088 of 2023 are filed
questioning the action of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality
in rejecting the Building Permission applications submitted by the
petitioners, who have purchased the plots in Sy.Nos.474/A and
476/B, situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial, under layout in LP
No.42/78.
3. The second batch of cases i.e, W.P.Nos.12382, 20090, 20230,
24487 of 2020; 17745, 24898 of 2021; 46173, 46210, 46269 of
2022; 1963, 2057 and 2070 of 2023 are filed challenging the
releasing of layout in LP 42/78, dated 06.06.2014 for the lands
situated in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B situated at Garmilla Village,
Mancherial.
4. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these writ
petitions are stated as under:
5. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch
(first batch of writ petitions) is that they have purchased various
extents of plots from Umar Miya Colony House Building Society
(hereinafter called as "Society") under various registered sale deeds
and their vendor-Society, which is registered vide Regd.No.TM 406,
in turn purchased the property from pattedar S.A. Hameed, whose
name is recorded as Pattedar in the revenue records for the lands
admeasuring Ac.12.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B, situated
at Garmilla Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. The
further case of the petitioners is that the pattedar has applied for a
layout plan for the above said land and thereafter, divided the same
into 86 plots including roads, open spaces etc,. The layout submitted
by the original Pattedar S.A.Hameed was approved by the Director of
Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred as
"DTCP") vide proceedings dated 21.10.1978 subject to payment of
conversion fee and security deposit as required under Sections 184
and 185 of Municipalities Act. The case of the petitioners is that said
Pattedar failed to remit the revenue arrears and for realization of the
arrears, the said lands were auctioned. In the auction conducted by
the revenue authorities, the Society and three others have purchased
the said property. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal vide
proceedings dated 12.03.1979, confirmed the auction conducted for
the said property. It is also case of the petitioners that when the title
and possession of the Society has been disputed by the protected
tenants, the Society was constrained to file a civil suit vide
O.S.No.165 of 1981 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet,
seeking injunction and the same was decreed in favour of the Society
vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.1983. It is further case of the
petitioners that the protected tenants surrendered their tenancy
rights orally and delivered possession of the lands to the pattedar
S.A.Hameed. It is alleged by the petitioners that they have purchased
the plots of various extents in the layout approved by DTCP, vide
layout in LP No.42/78. It is their further case that Society has
submitted a representation to the Municipal Commissioner, for
depositing the requisite fee and development charges for release of
the layout. The Municipal Commissioner vide letter dated 27.05.2006
sought clarification from the DTCP for receiving the amounts from
the Society for releasing the layout in favour of the Members of the
Society as well as other purchasers. The DTCP, vide proceedings
dated 12.03.2007 directed the Municipal Commissioner to submit
fresh proposal for change of land use subject to the condition that no
development shall be allowed till the Government issued
confirmation orders. It is further case of the petitioners that the
Society has submitted a letter dated 09.10.2007 requesting the
Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to permit for payment of
conversion fee and security deposit and to submit fresh proposal for
change of land use and also made a representation to the Tahsildar,
for mutating the names of the petitioners/plot owners in the revenue
records. The Tahsildar vide proceedings No.MRI-I/2007 dated
09.12.2008 directed the Village Revenue Officer, Garmilla, to mutate
the names of plots owners in the revenue records. When the names
of the petitioners were not incorporated in the revenue records, the
Society filed W.P.No.23402 of 2014 on the file of this Court seeking
implementation of the Memo No.MRI-I/2007 dated 09.12.2008
issued by the Tahsildar. It is their further case that in
implementation of the interim directions, the names of the Society
and the petitioners were incorporated in the revenue records. It is
also their case that pending consideration of their applications for
Building Permission, the Society filed W.P.No.7315/2008 seeking to
direct the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality to accept the
conversion fee and not to dispossess the members of the Society from
the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village. This said
Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.10.2008 directing
the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to submit fresh
proposal to the DTCP, subject to the Society paying all the necessary
fee, development and conversion charges etc,. The Commissioner,
Mancherial Municipality, vide letter dated 26.11.2008 directed the
Society to execute Registered Gift Deed in favour of the Municipality
for handing over open spaces earmarked in the layout. Questioning
the orders dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.7315 of 2008,
Sd.Saleem claiming to be the son of original Pattedar has filed Writ
Appeal No.44 of 2009 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
disposed of the said appeal vide judgment dated 29.01.2009
confirming the orders of the learned Single Judge. The Society vide
letter dated 15.11.2011 requested the Commissioner, Mancherial
Municipality, to accept the conversion charges and send proposal to
the DTCP for release of the layout. The Society filed another
W.P.No.21824 of 2013 seeking a direction to the DTCP for release of
the layout for the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla
Village. It is their further case that pending adjudication of the said
writ petition, DTCP, has called for inspection report from the
Regional Director, DTCP and the Regional Director, vide letter
Roc.No.176/2012/WRO/W dated 21.10.2013 has submitted report.
Basing on the said report, the DTCP vide letter Roc.No.1583/2012/W
dated 06.01.2014 requested the Commissioner, Mancherial
Municipality, to release the layout in LP No.42/78. It is further case
of the petitioners that in compliance of the letter issued by the DTCP,
the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality vide Roc
No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 released the approved layout in
LP No.42/78 for the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla
Village in favour of Society subject to the condition that the Society
at their cost shall form the roads, keep open the places shown in the
layout and complete other developmental activities and in the event
of failure to provide minimum basic amenities, the development
charges shall be collected from the plot owners who obtain building
permission as per rules.
6. While the matter stood thus, W.P.No.25633 of 2018 came to be
filed by the legal heir of the original pattedar late S.A.Hameed,
seeking to direct the respondents therein not to construct the
overhead water tank in layout LP No.42/78 in Sy.Nos.474/A and
476/B situated at Garmilla Shivar, Mancherial Mandal, Mancherial
District by changing the nature of land. After contest, the said writ
petition was disposed of directing the petitioner therein to avail
appropriate remedies available under law. Thereafter, W.P.No.12382
of 2020 came to be filed by Sd. Saleem, claiming to be son of Late
S.A.Hameed, original Pattedar challenging the approval of layout in
LP No.42/78 for the lands in Sy.Nos.474A and 476/B of Garmilla
Village, claiming rights under registered partition deed bearing
document No.3685/2002 and disputing the right and title of the
Society and its members (petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and
batch). The alleged protected tenants filed W.P.Nos.20354 and 20775
of 2009 on the file of this Court and this Court dismissed the said
writ petitions vide common order dated 19.11.2014 relegating the
petitioners therein to avail the remedies before the appropriate
forum. It is further case of the petitioners that legal heir of
S.A.Hameed and protected tenants without establishing their right
and title over the property purchased by the petitioners in
W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch under layout LP No.42/78 are
disputing the release of the said layout basing on fabricated
documents. Thus there is no illegality or irregularity in releasing the
layout LP No.42/78 and ultimately, prayed for allowing the writ
petitions.
7. The second batch of writ petitions i.e, W.P.No.12382 of 2020
and batch are filed to declare the Proceedings in Roc.No.G1/33/2014
dated 06.06.2014, of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, in
transferring and releasing the layout vide L.P.No.42/78, for the lands
in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Shivar, Mancherial, in the
name of Society, without issuing any notice and without following
due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of
natural justice. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of
2020 that Late S.A. Hameed was the absolute owner and possessor
of the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B, total admeasuring
Ac.12.20 gts situated at Garmilla Shivar, Mancherial. It is further
case of the petitioner that in the year 1968, the said S.A.Hameed
converted the above said land into house plots and later made an
application to the Director of Country and Town Planning,
Hyderabad, for approval of the said layout. The said application was
considered and the layout was approved vide L.P. No.42/78. In the
said layout 84 plots with 100 ft., 40 ft. and 33 ft. roads, open space
for park and other amenities were earmarked, and the same was
implemented on ground. After death of late S.A.Hameed, the family
partition took place among the family members of said S.A.Hameed
and the above said land fell to the share of the petitioner in
W.P.No.12382 of 2020 as per the Partition deed bearing document
No.3685/2002. The petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 claims the
entire extent of land covered under L.P No.42/78. It is further case of
the petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 that his brother has
instituted a suit vide O.S.No.148 of 2002 on the file of the Junior
Civil Judge at Luxettipet, seeking perpetual injunction against the
Umar Miya Colony Society and the same was decreed vide judgment
and decree dated 23.02.2005 and since then they are in peaceful
possession of the land covered under the above said layout. It is
further case of the petitioner that he has sold around 25 plots to
third parties and the purchasers are in peaceful possession of their
respective house plots. It is further case of the petitioner that in the
year 2018, when the authorities made an attempt to construct a
water tank in the portion earmarked in the layout LP No.42/78, he
filed W.P.No.25633 of 2018 on the file of this Court. This Court
disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 23.11.2022
granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies
available under law. It is further submitted that on 10.07.2020, the
petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 came to know about the transfer
and release of layout vide LP 42/78 in favour of the Society
(respondent No.6 therein) and filed W.P.No.12382 of 2020
challenging the release of layout in favour of Society and its members
and purchasers of plots in an auction conducted by the revenue
department vide proceedings dated 18.03.1979. It is further case of
the petitioner that when he applied for copy of the auction
proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, he came to know that
there is no original file No.E/459/1979, which is basis for
incorporation of name of the Society and its members in the revenue
records as owners and releasing of layout in their favour vide LP
No.42/78. Challenging the same, the second batch i.e, W.P.No.12382
of 2020 and batch are filed.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner,
Mancherial Municipality, inter alia stating that layout vide LP
No.42/78 in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla
Village, was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning
vide proceedings dated 21.10.1978. Thereafter, the said lands were
made into plots and auctioned by the Revenue Department, which
was knocked down by four persons i.e., Iqbal Ahmed, Yousuf Ahmed,
Azam Ali Khan, and Jameel Ahmed. The auction purchasers formed
into Society known as Umar Miya Colony House Building Society,
which is registered vide Regd.No.TM 406 dated 18.11.1978. It is
further stated that the auction conducted by the Revenue authorities
was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings in
File No.E/459/1979 dated 12.03.1979. It is further submitted that
protected tenants claiming rights on the auctioned property under
Section 38E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, relying on some sale deeds, have instituted
the suit vide O.S.No.1/2015 on the file of Additional District Judge,
Mancherial, against the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality and
the Society and the same is pending. It is further stated in the
counter affidavit that the Society has instituted W.P.No.23402/2014
on the file of this Court for incorporation of their names in the
revenue records. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court
vide order dated 21.04.2016. Meanwhile, the DTCP, relying upon the
report of the Regional Director, has requested the Commissioner,
Mancherial Municipality to release the Layout LP No.42/78 vide
Lr.Roc.No.1583/2012/W dated 06.01.2014 and the Commissioner,
Mancherial Municipality released the layout vide Proceedings
No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014. It is further stated that there is
no illegality or irregularity in releasing the layout in favour of the
Society/Petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch and prayed
for dismissal of W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch (filed questioning
the release of layout No.42/78).
9. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality filed a
consolidated counter affidavit in W.P.No.1963 of 2023 inter alia
stating that as per the records available with the office of respondent
No.4, originally S.A. Hameed, was the owner of lands admeasuring
Ac.6-06 gts., and Ac.6-15 gts., in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B, situated
at Garmilla Village, Mancherial and the said S.A. Hameed, became
defaulter of forest arrears and for realization of arrears, the above
lands were attached and put on sale by the authorities and since no
purchaser came forward to purchase attached land, the said land
was converted into residential layout so that the plots can be sold in
public auction and the forest arrears defaulted by the said
S.A.Hameed (Pattedar) would be recovered. The DTCP authorities
approved the layout in the name of S.A. Hameed vide letter
Dis.No.20836/78/D5 dated 21.10.1978 subject to collection of the
conversion fee and security deposit as required under Sections 184
and 185 of AP Municipalities Act, 1965 and further requested to
submit necessary proposal for the change of land use of the
sanctioned master plan of Mancherial i.e., from agricultural use to
residential use. It is submitted that the said layout vide L.P.No.42/78
was implemented and made as many as 86 house plots by leaving
the roads and open spaces as per the approved layout. The
residential plots in the above layout were sold by the revenue
authorities i.e., the-then Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings
No.E/459/79 dated 12.03.1979 by conducting public auction for
recovery of forest arrears. It is submitted that since the layout
approval was subject to the condition of paying of conversion fee and
converting the subject land from agricultural zone to residential zone
in the sanctioned master plan, the Commissioner, Mancherial
Municipality sent a proposal for collection of conversion fee from the
Members of the Society. The Society made a representation to the
Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality to accord construction
permission to the purchasers, who are willing to construct the
houses and who are prepared to pay the layout and building charges
as per rules and basing on the said representation, the-then
municipal council passed a resolution dated 23.12.1985 to seek
clarification from the Director of Town and Country Planning for
collection of conversion charges and betterment charges. It is stated
that since the Society expressed willingness to pay security deposit
for release of layout vide LP No.42/78, the Commissioner,
Mancherial Municipality addressed a letter vide Rc.No.497/P/77
dated 27.05.2006 to the DTCP seeking clarification for collection of
charges. Pending consideration of the said issue, the Society filed
Writ Petition No.7315 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by this
Court directing the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality to send
fresh proposal to the DTCP subject to the society paying necessary
fee. It is further stated that respondent No.5 in W.P.No.7315 of 2008
is none other than the son of the land owner S.A. Hameed, who
preferred Writ Appeal No.44 of 2009 against the orders passed in WP
No.7315 of 2008 and the same was disposed of confirming the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7315 of 2008. The
DTCP authorities after due examination of the proposals, considered
and issued orders according necessary permission vide letter
No.1583/2012 dated 06.01.2014 to release the layout plan
No.42/1978 of Garmilla Village and accordingly the Municipal
Council passed a resolution No.13 dated 05.06.2014 to release the
layout plan 42/1978 as permitted by the DTCP and accordingly the
impugned proceedings No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 were
issued releasing the layout vide LP No.42/1978. It is further
submitted that impugned proceedings were issued in the year 2014
and W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch were filed in the year 2020
without explaining the delay and there is no illegality or irregularity
in releasing the layout in LP No.42/78 and the same was pending
only for seeking approval of conversion of land use and in fact
tentative layout was already issued in the year 1978. Thereafter,
plots made in the said layout were sold to various persons by way of
public auction and now the land is no more agricultural land and
various houses are constructed and at this length of time, the
petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch are disputing the title
and sub-division of the land forming part of Sy.Nos.474 and 476 and
questioning the layout approved for the subject land.
10. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Mancherial, in W.P.No.28215 of 2013 inter alia stating that
vide Lr.No.B/223/2024, dated 05.02.2024, he directed the Tahsildar,
Mancherial to submit detailed report regarding the lands in
Sy.Nos.474 and 476 situated at Garmilla Village of Mancherial
Mandal. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Mancherial, submitted that the
total land admeasuring Ac.12-18 Gts., in Sy.No.474 and the land
admeasuring Ac.11-16 Gts., in Sy.No.476 situated at Garmilla
Village of Mancherial Mandal, out of which, as per Khasra Pahani for
the years 1955-56, 1956-1957 and 1957-1958, the name of Abdul
Hameed has been recorded as Pattedar in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.6.06gts., in Sy.No.474/A and Ac.6-15 Gts., in
Sy.No.476/AA situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial Mandal and
continued up to 1969-1970. Further, as per the Pahani for the year
1970-1971, the name of Sri Syed Asadullah S/o. Abdul Hameed is
recorded as Pattedar for the land admeasuring Ac.6-06 gts., in
Sy.No.474/A and the land admeasuring Ac.6-15 Gts., in
Sy.No.476/AA situated at Garmilla Village of Mancherial Mandal and
continued up to 1996-1997. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that vide Proc.No.E/459/79, dated 12-03-1979, the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal has issued Orders, as the
S.A.Hameed became defaulter of forest arrears and auction was
confirmed in favour of the purchasers namely Iqbal Ahmed, Yousuf
Ahmed, Azam Ali Khan and Jameel Ahmed. The said auction
proceedings were not implemented in Revenue Records. Whereas, as
per Pahani for the year 2004-2005, the name of Sri Syed Asadullah
was recorded as Pattedar for the lands in Sy.No.474/1 to an extent of
Ac.5-21 Gts., and in Sy.No.476/1 to an extent of Ac.2-05 Gts.,
situated at Garmilla Village of Mancherial Mandal. It is further stated
that vide Memo No. MRI-I/2007, dated 09.12.2008, the Tahsildar,
Mancherial Mandal has directed the Village Revenue Officer,
Garmilla Village, to implement the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal
Proceedings No.E/459/79 dated 12.03.1979. Vide Memo
No.E/4957/2009 dated 26-11-2014, the Tahsildar, Mancherial
Mandal has passed orders that total land admeasuring Ac.6-06 Gts.,
in Sy.No.474/A and the land admeasuring Ac.6-15 Gts., in
Sy.No.476/B, out of which the land to an extent of Ac.0-18 Gts. in
Sy.No.474/A and to an extent of Ac.2.23 Gts., in Sy.No.476/B
purchased by Umar Miya Colony and the same was implemented in
favour of purchasers of Umar Miya Colony House Building Society,
Mancherial and therefore, the said extent may be deleted.
Accordingly, the Village Revenue Officer, Garmilla Village was
directed to delete the above names from the Revenue records and
incorporate the name of Umar Miya Colony House Building Society,
Mancherial over the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B to an extent
of Ac.5.18 Gts., and Ac.4.32 Gts., respectively including the roads
and Open area for Society development purpose i.e., School, Temple,
and Park etc. It is further stated that as seen from the Dharani
Portal Pahani the lands in Sy.Nos.474 and 476 are shown as house
sites/house pattas and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ
petitions.
11. Sri Polisetti Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch, strenuously
contended that initially, in the revenue records, the lands
admeasuring Ac.12-21gts in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B situated at
Garmilla Village, Mancherial, were recorded in the name of
S.A.Hameed as pattedar and a layout was obtained in the name of
pattedar and the lands were converted into plots. For realization of
Forest arrears from S.A.Hameed (pattedar), the lands were accounted
for revenue and auction was conducted by the revenue authorities
and in the said auction, four persons i.e, Iqbal Ahmed, Yousuf
Ahmed, Azam Ali Khan and Jameel Ahmed, purchased the said
lands. Since the tentative layout was not released, the auction
purchasers who formed Umar Miya Society, had submitted a
representation to the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, and
acting on the said representation, the Commissioner, Mancherial
Municipality, vide letter dated 27.5.2006 sought clarification from
the Director of Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad (DTCP),
whether to collect fees from the Members of the Society. The DTCP,
vide proceedings dated 12.3.2007 directed the Commissioner,
Mancherial Municipality, to submit fresh proposal for change of land
use subject to the condition that no development shall be allowed till
the Government issued Confirmation Orders. Thereafter, the Society
filed WP No.7315/2008 on the file of this Court seeking to declare
the action of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, in not
accepting the conversion fee from the members of the Society and
also the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, in trying
to dispossess the members of the Society from the lands in
Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village, Mancherial, without
issuing any notice, as illegal. The said writ petition was disposed of
by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2008 directing the
Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to send fresh proposal to
the DTCP, subject to Society paying all the necessary fees,
development and conversion charges etc. It is further contended that
the alleged protected tenants who claimed the rights over the
property filed Writ Petition Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 on the file
of this Court and the same were dismissed vide order dated
19.11.2014. At present the members of Umar Miya Colony House
Building Society, who purchased the plots from the auction
purchasers are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their
respective plots. It is further submitted that petitioners in
W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch are not having any right or title
over the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B and they have no locus to
dispute the right and title of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28215 of
2023 and batch (first batch) and therefore, prayed to allow the
W.P.Nos.28215 of 2023 and batch (first batch) and dismiss the
W.P.Nos.12382 of 2020 and batch (second batch) filed questioning
release of layout in LP No.42/78 in favour of the Society and its
members.
12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality has
submitted that as per the records available with the Municipality,
originally S.A. Hameed, was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.6-06
Gts., and Ac.6-15 Gts., in Sy Nos.474/A and 476/B, situated at
Garmilla Village, the land owner was declared as defaulter for forest
arrears and for realization of the arrears, the said land was disposed
of in auction and the Society and others purchased the property
under layout LP No.42/78. It is further submitted that the
Municipality has followed the due procedure for approval of the
layout and the Municipality is not having any power to decide the
inter se disputes relating to title, possession, identification and
classification of the land. The Society and its members have prima
facie established their title over the subject property and paid
requisite amounts and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity
in releasing the layout. It is further submitted that mere release of
the layout does not confer any right and title, the parties disputing
the title inter se has to approach competent Civil Court seeking
declaration of their title and recovery of the possession and
ultimately, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of
2020 and batch vehemently contended that the predecessors-in-
interest of the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch, are
the title holders of the lands in Sy.Nos.474 and 476/B situated at
Garmilla Village, Mancherial and no original records are traceable to
say that the lands are sold in the auction for recovery of revenue
arrears. In the absence of the original records disclosing the nature
of the lands, it cannot be said that the Society has purchased the
lands in the auction said to have been conducted by the revenue
authorities. It is further submitted that the rights of the protected
tenancy over the subject property have not been finalized. In view of
serious disputes relating to title, possession, extents of subject
property, the Municipality is not having any power to release the
layout pending from the year 1978 without considering the
objections of the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch and
ultimately, prayed to allow the W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch and
dismiss the W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch.
14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the respective parties in these cases and also
counter affidavits filed by the Commissioner, Mancherial
Municipality and Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial and perused
the record.
15. The lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B situated at Garmilla
Village were classified as patta lands and recorded in the name of
S.A. Hameed, as pattedar. The said Pattedar made the said lands
into plots vide LP No.42/78. The S.A.Hameed became defaulter of
forest arrears and the lands stood in his name were auctioned in
public auction and purchased by four persons namely Iqbal Ahmed,
Yousuf Ahmed, Azam Ali Khan, proprietor of Umar Miya Colony
House Building Society ("Society") and Jameel Ahmed, and the same
was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Proceedings
No.E/459/79 dated 12.03.1979. The petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of
2023 and batch have purchased the plots from the Society. The
layout LP No.42/78 in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B was approved by
the DTCP, vide proceedings dated 21.10.1978 subject to payment of
conversion fee and security deposit as required under Sections 184
and 185 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. The DTCP, vide proceedings
dated 12.3.2007 directed the Commissioner, Mancherial
Municipality, to submit fresh proposal for change of land use. While
the matter stood thus, Society submitted a representation dated
9.10.2007 to the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, requesting
to permit for payment of conversion fee and security deposit and
submit fresh proposal for change of land use. When the said request
was not considered, the Society filed W.P.No.7315/2008 on the file of
this Court. This Court vide order dated 14.10.2008 disposed of the
said Writ Petition directing the Commissioner, Mancherial
Municipality, to submit fresh proposal to DTCP, subject to the
Society paying all the necessary fee, development and conversion
charges etc. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, vide letter
dated 26.11.2008 directed the Society to execute Registered Gift
Deed in favour of the Municipality by handing over physical
possession to an extent of open space to enable them to send fresh
proposal for conversion of land use. Meanwhile, the alleged protected
tenants also filed Writ Petition Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 seeking
to declare the action of respondents in trying to dispossess them
from lands admeasuring Ac.8-20 gts in Sy.No.474 of Garmilla village,
Mancherial, without recourse to law, as illegal. In the said Writ
Petitions, this Court vide common order dated 19.11.2014 observed
that the issues sought to be canvassed by the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 cannot be conveniently
considered and decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and accordingly, dismissed the said writ petitions by leaving it open
to the petitioners therein to work out the remedies available in law.
The petitioner in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 who claims to be son of
original Pattedar of S.A.Hameed has filed Writ Appeal No.44 of 2009
on the file of this Court questioning the orders dated 14.10.2008
passed in W.P.No.7315/2008 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal vide judgment dated
29.01.2009, allowing the appellant therein to file his objections in
respect of the proposal sent by the Mancherial Municipality and also
left it open to the parties to avail the remedies, in accordance with
law. Thereafter, the Director of Town and Country Planning,
Hyderabad, has called for inspection report from the Regional
Director, DTCP and the Regional Director, vide letter
Roc.No.176/2012/W/RO/W dated 21.10.2013 has submitted report.
Basing on the said report, the DTCP vide letter Roc.No.1583/2012/W
dated 06.01.2014 directed the Municipal Commissioner to release
the layout in LP No.42/78. In compliance of the same, the Municipal
Commissioner vide Roc No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 released
the approved layout plan in LP No.42/78 for the lands in
Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla Village. Thereafter, the
individual plot owners who alleged to have purchased the property
from the Society and as well as from Sd.Saleem, S/o. S.A.Hameed
have instituted W.P.No.34829 of 2021 and batch questioning the
action of the Mancherial Municipality in issuing revocation orders for
cancellation of the permissions granted for the plots situated in the
subject property under dispute. The said writ petitions were
disposed of by this Court vide common order dated 03.04.2023
directing the Mancherial Municipality to consider the objections of all
stakeholders and after giving an opportunity of hearing, pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. In compliance of the said
order, the Mancherial Municipality has considered the objections of
all the stakeholders by issuing notice vide Proceedings
No.G1/989/2023 dated 07.08.2023 inter alia stating that in view of
the status quo orders dated 03.04.2023 granted by this Court in
W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch, the permission applications of the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.34829 of 2021 and batch were not considered.
16. The petitioners in these writ petitions are claiming rights in
respect of lands situated in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garmilla
Shiver, Mancherial Mandal and inviting this Court to decide the
question relating to right, title and possession of the subject
property. In view of the serious disputes between the parties with
regard to right, title and possession of the subject property, writ
petition is not the remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the
parties, in the absence of examining the documents relating to title
and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to, who is
the owner of the property; whether the petitioners are in possession
of the subject property and, if so, from which date, how and in what
circumstances, they claim to be in possession; whether their
possession could be regarded as legal or not qua its real owner, etc.,
are some of the material questions which arose for consideration in
these batch of writ petitions. These questions, in my view, are pure
questions of fact, which could be answered one way or the other only
by the civil court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis
of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria 1 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
"6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various
High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement
of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that
the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available
except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory
authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate
direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the
respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the
orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy
under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High
Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding
disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are
available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a
suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and
extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly." (emphasis
supplied).
18. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 2, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
"The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is
concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an
order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a
private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving
public law character. It is also well-settled that a writ remedy is not
available for resolution of a property or a title dispute."
19. It is settled law that the Municipal authorities are not having
any authority to conduct a roving enquiry to determine the title or
ownership of the property and the limited functions entrusted under
the provisions of Municipalities Act, is only to consider the objections
(1992) 4 SCC 61
(2003) 6 SCC 230
to make a pragmatic assessment of material available on record. The
Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality and the Director, Town and
Country Planning, are not entitled to decide title dispute and
possession and basing on the same, they have no power to reject the
building permission on the ground of title dispute. Admittedly, the
Umar Miya Colony House Building Society, filed Writ Petition
No.7315 of 2008 against the Revenue authorities, Mancherial
Municipality and also against the Sd.Saleem, who claimed to be son
of S.A.Hameed (pattedar) and Gajelli Shankar and Gajelli Mallaiah,
arraying them as respondent Nos.5 to 7. The said W.P was disposed
of by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2008, directing the
Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to send fresh proposal to
the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, subject to
the Society paying all necessary fees, development and conversion
charges etc. Questioning the orders dated 14.10.2008 passed in
W.P.No.7315 of 2008, Sd.Saleem, son of the original pattedar, filed
Writ Appeal No.44 of 2009 on the file of this Court and the said Writ
Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 29.01.2009 confirming the orders passed in
W.P.No.7315 of 2008.
20. The petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch (first
batch) are claiming their right and title from the Umar Miya Colony
House Building Society, under the layout in LP No.42/78 issued vide
proceedings No.G1/33/2014 dated 06.06.2014 and the said layout
was released after the inspection report submitted by the Regional
Director, Director of Town & Country Planning. It is also not out of
place to state that W.P.Nos.20354 and 20775 of 2009 filed by the
protected tenants were dismissed by this Court vide order dated
19.11.2014 and the said orders attained finality. Further questioning
the orders passed in W.P.No.7315/2008, the legal heir of the original
pattedar has filed W.A.No.44/2009 on the file of this Court and the
said Writ Appeal was disposed of by Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court granting liberty to the legal heir of original pattedar to file
objections. Thereafter, the legal heir of S.A.Hameed filed
W.P.No.25633 of 2018 questioning the action of the Municipality in
constructing overhead water tank in layout LP No.42/78 and the
said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court relegating the
petitioner to avail the remedies available under law. The legal heir of
the original pattedar S.A.Hameed and the protected tenants having
failed to obtain orders in restraining the petitioners in W.P.No.28215
of 2023 and batch in proceeding with the construction have filed
W.P.No.12382 of 2020 for seeking cancellation of the layout in LP
No.42/78. Since the building permissions sought for by the
petitioners in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch were rejected only on
the ground of pendency of W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch, this
Court after considering the chequered history relating to the subject
lands, deems it appropriate to allow the W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and
batch granting reliefs as sought for.
21. Sofaras the petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch
(second batch) are concerned, they are seeking cancellation of the
layout in LP No.42/78 disputing the right and title of the petitioners
in W.P.No.28215 of 2023 and batch. The subject layout was released
only after conducting inspection and after collecting necessary
charges. Further, the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality or the
Director of Town & Country Planning, are not having any power or
authority, to decide the inter se disputes between the parties relating
to title and possession of the subject property except satisfying
themselves about the prima facie entitlement of release of the layout.
Further, questioning the layout in LP No.42/1978 dated 06.06.2014,
W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch came to be filed in the year 2020
nearly after six years with unreasonable delay. At this length of
time, if the layout approved in the year 2014 is cancelled, the rights
of innocent parties, who purchased the subject property, would be
affected and the settled positions may lead to unsettle. Therefore, the
petitioners in W.P.No.12382 of 2020 and batch have to agitate their
rights in a properly instituted civil suit, if they are so advised.
22. In the result, the first batch of cases i.e, W.P.Nos.28215,
23808, 23821, 23823, 23824, 23826, 23835, 23855, 23863, 23875,
23898, 23900, 28246, 28270, 28273, 28314, and 29088 of 2023 are
allowed directing the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality, to
consider the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking
building permissions if their lands are forming part of approved
layout in LP No.42/78 in accordance with law. The second batch of
cases i.e, W.P.Nos.12382, 20090, 20230, 24487 of 2020; 17745,
24898 of 2021; 46173, 46210, 46269 of 2022; 1963, 2057 and 2070
of 2023 are disposed of relegating the petitioners to approach
competent Civil Court and establish their rights over the lands
claimed by them and seek appropriate relief, in accordance with law,
if they are so advised. It is needless to observe that any observations
made in this common order will not have any bearing over the suits,
if any, being instituted claiming rights and title over the subject
property.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 01.05.2024
scs
