2002 Supreme(AP) 1187

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.R.LAKSHAMANAN, V.ESWARAIAH
T.Praveena - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-09-02

Headnote:

Civil Matter – Civil Law - Writ Petitioners –Seeking for Writ of Mandamus – Constitution of India - Article 226 - Appellants-writ petitioners filed writ petition to issue a Writ of mandamus declaring action of 1st respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad, in not finally determining boundary between land of 5th respondent - Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building society Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and 2nd and 3rd respondents- commandant, 1st Battalion, Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Yousufguda, hyderabad and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh Special Police, yousufguda, Hyderabad, respectively, situated in T. S. No. 3/part, Block A and ward 9, Shaikpet, Hyderabad; and not preventing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from encroaching land of 5th respondent allotted to appellants-petitioners as illegal and arbitrary; and to direct 1st respondent to finally demarcate boundary between lands of 5th respondent and that of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - Allotted land in an extent of Ac. 6-23 gts. in favor of 2nd respondent vide G. O. Ms revenue - Said land is abutting land allotted to 5th respondent - Said extent of land was not specifically delineated and demarcated - On representation of 5th respondent, minister for Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, directed to localize land allotted to 2nd respondent and accordingly, 1st respondent got land localised through Revenue Officials and demarcated lands of the 2nd and 5th respondents vide letter in reference No. C3/8654/91 of 1st respondent - Subsequently, land in an extent of Ac. 3-20 gts. was resumed out of allotted land of Ac. 6-23 gts. in favor of 2nd respondent and allotted same to vijaya Co-operative House Building Society limited, which is not a party to writ petition - It is alleged that on 4th respondent, in process of developing land, at instance of 2nd and 3rd respondents, encroached land of appellants-petitioners and also undertaking developmental activities. Immediately, appellants-petitioners informed same to 5th respondent and requested it to take necessary steps against unauthorised activities of 2nd to 4th respondents; and that the 5th respondent addressed a letter dated 29-05-2002 requesting 1st respondent to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorised activities in land belonging to 5th respondent, which was allotted to appellants-petitioners, by deputing revenue Officials - As it is alleged that 1st respondent has not taken any steps pursuant to their letter they were constrained to file writ petition seeking aforesaid relief – Held, Court says that If at all it affects, it is for 5th respondent to come forward with necessary pleadings before appropriate forum or can approach authorities viz. , 1st respondent or before any authority, for demarcation of its land with that of 2nd and 3rd respondents, but it is not open for petitioners-appellants to plead that 2nd to 4th respondents, without demarcation of land belonging to 5th respondent are encroaching into land of 5th respondent - Question whether there is any overlapping of land of 2nd and 3rd respondents to that of 5th respondent s land or any encroachment by 2nd respondent cannot be decided in a summary manner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Learned single Judge, accordingly, dismissed said writ petition - Court says that have elaborately heard contentions of learned counsel appearing for petitioners-appellants and respondents, at stage of admission, and also perused relevant records - We agree with view of learned single judge that several disputed questions of fact relating to title of private individuals cannot be gone into under extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - It is stated by learned Additional Advocate General that appellants-petitioners have not filed any sale deeds showing boundaries and as per the report, land of appellants-petitioners have not been encroached upon in any manner - Court cannot conduct a regular enquiry and receive evidence with regard to disputed questions of fact - Learned single Judge, after considering rival contentions has rightly refused to decide disputed questions of fact - It is not stated how lands of appellants-petitioners have been encroached upon by respondents - It is stated that even as per Advocate-Commissioner s report, plots of petitioners-appellants have been localised and their property has not been affected in any manner and there is no encroachment whatsoever - Court do not see any merit in any of contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for petitioners-appellants and writ appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed – Appeal Dismissed.