Telangana High Court

V. Kumar S/O Pochaiah vs The District Collector, Hyderabad on 28 October, 2024

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                    AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.12420 of 2005

ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more preferably in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the houses of the petitioners bearing plot Nos.232, 233, 234, 235/1 and 235 respectively, situated in Survey No.74/11 forming part of Vaddera Basti Colony of East Maredpally, Secunderabad as high handed, illegal and without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing the petitioners and therefore hit by the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice and doctrine of legitimate expectation and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their houses in Sy.No.74/11 in Maredpally, Secunderabad and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Mr. V. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, Mr. K. Muralidhar Reddy, ::2::

learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Brief facts of the case :

3.1. The claim of the petitioners is that one Smt.

Namdarunnisa Begum was the original owner and pattadar of

the land in Sy.No.74/11 situated at East Maredpally,

Secunderabad, and she was survived two sons, namely Syed

Ghousuddin and Syed Shamshuddin Ahmed. The land in

question was purchased by one Davji Hiriji Shah and there is a

dispute between him and the legal heirs of Namdarunnisa

Begum and they filed suit in O.S.No.49 of 1968 on the file of

the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the said

Court decreed the suit in 30.12.1969 and by virtue of the

decree, 70% of the land was given to Davji Hirji Shah and 30%

of the land was given to legal heirs of late Namdarunnisa

Begum. When Davji Hirji Shah and his legal heirs sought to

evict the persons, who are in possession in the subject land,

E.P.No.20 of 1991 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, the parties arrived compromise and the

same was recorded on 22.04.1994, wherein the area in ::3::

occupation of respective tenants were identified and confirmed

in their favour and the remaining left over area was taken over

by the said Davji Hirji Shah and his legal heirs.

3.2. It is further averred that in the above said compromise,

the petitioners were figured and allotted plots, and also averred

that the petitioners have been in possession of their respective

plot Nos.232, 233, 234, 235/1 and 235 respectively more than

30 years even prior to the date of compromise decree and

constructed small houses in the said plots and residing.

3.3. The petitioners further averred that respondent No.2,

without giving any notice, straight away demolished the

petitioners' compound walls and houses. Immediately, the

petitioners have approached the respondents and submitted

representation questioning illegal demolition of their houses

and to do justice, but they have not given any response. In

June 2005, the officials of respondent No.3 office have taken

measurements of the petitioners' demolished plots for installing

a transformer and electrical equipment, without issuing any

notice to the petitioners, though subject property is a private

property.

::4::

3.4. Respondent No.1 in his letter dated 31.10.1995 confirmed

that the land in Sy.No.74 which is corresponding to several

town Sy.Nos. 119 and 130 and the same are private lands. The

action of the respondent authorities in demolishing the property

of the petitioners without giving any notice and reasonable

opportunity of hearing is in gross violation principles of natural

justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

3.5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit stating

that the land in Sy.No 74 of Marredpally Paigah village is

classified as government "Poramboke" land and the land in

question i.e., to an extent 515 Sq. yards in Sy.No.74 was

allotted to AP TRANSCO and handed over the possession to

respondent No.3 in 2004 for construction of 33/11 KV sub-

station by conducting panchamma. It is further stated that any

claims of private ownership, including those based on civil

decrees are not binding upon them, as the government was not

a party in those proceedings. The respondents denied the

petitioners' claim in respect of property including demolition of

houses and also stated that the land is vacant and the same

was handover to respondent No.3.

::5::

3.6. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit, wherein it is

stated that in Addagutta area there is frequent power

interruptions and low voltage issues and for the purpose of

construction of 33/11 KV sub-station, the District Collector

allotted 515 sq. yards of land and laid a foundation stone in

April 2005. The 33/11 KV sub-station is aimed at benefiting the

local public. It is further stated that the land in Sy.No.74/11 of

East Maredpally Village was classified as Government

Poramboke and the said land was allotted to respondent No.3

in May 2004 and sub-station construction was completed in the

year 2005 itself.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that

petitioners are in possession of lots bearing Nos. 232, 233,

234, 235/1 and 235 respectively, covered by Sy.No.74/11 since

long time and constructed houses and their possession was

recognized by the competent civil court in E.P.No.20 of 1991 in

O.S.No.49 of 1968 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, through compromise decree and he

further contended that the petitioners have been in possession ::6::

of the subject property more than 30 years even prior to the

date of compromise decree.

4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 without giving

any notice and opportunity to the petitioners demolished the

compound wall and houses and the same was allotted to

respondent No.3 for establishment of sub-station and the same

is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and

violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of

India.

4.3. He further contended that respondent No.1 himself

addressed a letter to the Commissioner, MCH, Hyderabad on

31.10.1995 stating that the subject property is in Sy.No.74/11

is a private land. He also contended that one

Mr.E.Bhagavandas filed L.G.C.No.70 of 1994 on the file of the

Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing

(Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, claiming that he is owner of the

schedule property mentioned therein and the respondents

therein grabbed the said land without having any legal

entitlement. In the said case, the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Secunderabad, impleaded as party respondent claiming that ::7::

the property belongs to the Government. In the said L.G.C., the

Special Court rejected the claim of the Government. He further

contended that the State Government filed L.G.C.No.167 of

1997 claiming the entire Sy.No.74 belongs to the Government.

The Special Court after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record dismissed L.G.C.No.167 of 1997, by its

judgment and decree dated 18.03.2010. Aggrieved by the same,

the Government filed Writ Petition No.19106 of 2010 and the

same is pending, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has

not granted any stay. Hence, the respondent authorities are

not having any right in respect of the subject property, on the

other hand, the same was allotted to respondent No.3 by

demolishing the petitioners' houses. Unless and until, the

respondents initiate the Land Acquisition proceedings and

acquire the subject property by paying compensation, they are

not entitled to demolish and dispossess the petitioners and allot

the same respondent No.3.

::8::

4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra and another

v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 1.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2:

5.1. Learned Government Pleader submits that entire Sy.No.74

belongs to the Government. The petitioners are claiming rights

pursuant to the memorandum of compromise entered in

E.P.No.20 of 1991 in O.S.No.49 of 1968. In the said case, the

respondents are not the parties and the said compromise is not

binding upon them. He further submits that the petitioners are

not the parties in Land Grabbing Case vide L.G.C.No.70 of 1994

and L.G.C.No.167 of 1997. The petitioners are claiming rights

from Devji Hirji Shah, especially they are claiming rights from

Namdarunnisa Begum, and the said persons are not having any

semblance of right over the subject property. He further

contended that there are no houses/structures in the subject

property and the respondents have not demolished the houses

as alleged by the petitioners and the respondents handed over

the same for the public purpose for establishment of sub-

(2022) 7 SCC 508 ::9::

station. The land to an extent of 515 sq. yards was allotted to

respondent No.3 and handed over the possession by conducting

panchanama for installation of 33/11 KV sub-station for the

public purpose. Accordingly, respondent No.3 established sub-

station and the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief in

the writ petition.

6. Submission of Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3:

6.1. Learned Standing Counsel submits that respondent No.3

is proposed to erect 33/11 KV sub-station in Addagutta area,

as there are frequent interruption in power supply and low

voltage in surrounding areas and to meet the quality of power

supply in that area, the APCPDCL has approached respondent

No.1-District Collector for allot of land to erect of sub-station.

Accordingly, respondent No.1 allotted 515 sq. yards of vacant

land in Sy.No.74 by conducting panchanama and handed over

to respondent No.3 on 26.05.2004. Respondent No.3

constructed sub-station in the year 2005 itself and the

petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief against

respondent No.3.

::10::

Analysis:

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that the petitioners are clamming rights over

the subject property through compromise memo filed in

E.P.No.20 of 1991 in O.S.No.49 of 1968. In the said

proceedings, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not parties and same

is not binding upon them. The specific claim of respondent

Nos.1 and 2 that the subject property to an extent of 515 sq.

yards in Sy.No.74 is belonging to the government land and

same was allotted to respondent No.3 for public purpose for

establishment of 33/11 KV sub-station and respondent No.2

after conducting panchanama handed over the possession to

respondent No.3 on 26.05.2004. Accordingly, respondent No.3

constructed 33/11 KV sub-station and the subject property is

vacant land and they specifically denied that there are any

structures in the subject property, whereas the petitioners are

claiming that they constructed houses and the same are

demolished.

8. It further reveals that from the record that in L.G.C.No.70

of 1994, the property claimed by the applicant therein is in ::11::

respect of land in Sy.No.74/10 to an extent of Ac.4.00 gts.,

wherein the subject property claimed by the petitioners herein

was not included and the petitioners are also not parties in the

said case. Merely because of denying the claim of the

government in the said judgment, the petitioners are not

entitled to contend that the subject property is not belonging to

the government. Insofar as the other contention of learned

counsel for the petitioners that the government filed L.G.C. No.

167 of 1997 against the Vijayanathi Corporation Housing

Society and others seeking declaration declaring that the

respondents therein are land grabbers and entire land covered

by Sy.No.74/10 belonging to the government and said case was

dismissed on 18.03.2010 is concerned, in the said case the

petitioners are not the parties and it is brought to the notice of

this Court aggrieved by above said judgment, government filed

Writ Petition No.19610 of 2010 and the case is pending before

this Court and the same was reserved for judgment.

9. It is pertinent to mention that in this writ petition, the

petitioners are especially seeking declaration declaring the

action of the in demolishing the houses of the petitioners

bearing plot Nos.232, 233, 234, 235/1 and 235 respectively ::12::

situated in Survey No. 74/11 forming part of Vaddera Basti

Colony of East Maredpally, Secunderabad, as illegal and sought

consequential direction not to interfere with their possession.

Whereas, the claim of the respondents is that the subject land

is government land and no houses/structures existed in the

subject property claimed by the petitioners and same was

handover to respondent No.3 for public purpose i.e., for

construction of sub-station in the year 2004 and the same was

completed. The petitioners and respondents have raised several

disputed questions of facts and also title over the property and

the same cannot be adjudicated in the Writ Petition.

10. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil 2,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a proceeding under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy

for adjudication of property disputes or disputes relating to

title. It was further held in para Nos.59 to 61, which read as

follows:

"59. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of property

(2010) 8 SCC 329 ::13::

disputes or disputes relating to title. In Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam [(1969) 2 SCC 782] a three- Judge Bench of this Court, explaining the general principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226, held that this jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is not meant for declaring the private rights of the parties. (See SCC p. 786, para 5 of the Report.) In coming to the aforesaid conclusion in Hanif [(1969) 2 SCC 782], this Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [AIR 1954 SC 440].

60. Following the aforesaid principles in Hanif [(1969) 2 SCC 782], this Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Kalyani Banerjee [(1973) 1 SCC 273] held that serious questions about title and possession of land cannot be dealt with by writ court. In formulating these principles in Kalyani Banerjee [(1973) 1 SCC 273], this Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Sohan Lal [AIR 1957 SC 529] (see SCC p. 282, para 16 of the Report).

61. Again in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh [1993 Supp (1) SCC 306] this Court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to declare a person's title to property. (See SCC p. 309, para 7 of the Report.)"

11. It is trite law that where disputed questions of fact

regarding ownership and title between the parties, the same ::14::