Telangana High Court
Narra Ram Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 11 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.184 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri P. Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant; Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned Government Pleader for
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,
for respondent No.1; Ms. G. Sharvani, learned counsel
represents Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent No.2 and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned
Government Pleader for Revenue, for Revenue Department, for
respondent No.3.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner assailed the order dated
07.02.2024 before the learned Single Bench. Learned Single
Bench opined as under:
"6. It appears that there is dispute with
regard to identification of the property. Petitioner
is claiming right over the said property on the
strength of registered sale deed and whereas
according to 2nd respondent there is no open plot
at all and 2nd respondent has laid road strictly in
accordance with Master Plan. Thus, there are
serious disputed questions of fact, which neither
this Court can consider in a writ filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor 2nd
respondent municipality. Petitioner has to
approach Civil Court by filing a suit.
7. In the light of the aforesaid discussions,
the petitioner is not entitled for any relief much
less the relief sought in the present writ petition.
This writ petition is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed. Liberty is granted to the
petitioner to avail alternative remedy of filing of
suit. There shall be no order as to costs."
3. On a specific query from the Bench as to why the writ
appeal should be entertained in view of specific finding given in
page No.38, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on
information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
which is filed along with the writ appeal. Relevant paragraph of
the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 before the learned Single
Bench reads thus:
"in view of the above the representations of the
applicant are considered and it is informed that
the concerned officials of the municipality have
conducted detailed survey once again, and it is
found that, there is no open plot belongs to the
applicant. There is a clear road as per approved
Master Plan vide G.O.Ms.No.310 MA, dated
07.08.1990 Gazette."
4. Learned Single Judge opined that the disputed questions
of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition and permitted the
appellant to avail the remedy under the civil law. In our opinion,
learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view. No argument
could be advanced before us to demolish the finding given in the
impugned order dated 07.02.2024. Thus, the plausible view
taken by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered
with. It is trite that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone
into in a writ petition. The appropriate remedy for the appellant
is under the civil law. Thus, the impugned order dated
12.12.2024 is maintained.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 11.02.2025
Myk/Tsr
