Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. UMA DEVI, J.
P. Balakrishna and others - Appellants
Vs.
The Union of India and another - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 771 of 2018
Decided On : 22-06-2018
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Sections 2, 4 – Writ of certiorari – Appeal is preferred, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, by petitioners in W.P. aggrieved by order of Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition – Appellants herein had invoked jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to call for records, and to set aside order and decree in C.M.A. passed by Chief Judge, City Civil Court, confirming proceedings of Estates Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager – Held, Appeal against exercise of discretion is an appeal on principle – Appellate court will not reassess material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by court below, if one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material – Appellate court would, normally, not be justified in interfering with exercise of discretion under appeal solely on ground that, if it had considered matter at the trial stage, it would have come to a contrary conclusion – If discretion has been exercised by Single Judge reasonably, and in a judicious manner, fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with Single Judges exercise of discretion – Appellate court would not interfere with exercise of discretion by Single Judge unless such exercise is found to be palpably incorrect or untenable or if the view taken by Single Judge is not a possible view – Writ Appeal Dismissed (Paras 63, 64)
Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
1. This appeal is preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by the petitioners in W.P.No.12347 of 2007, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 13.04.2018 dismissing the Writ Petition. The appellants herein had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records, and to set aside the order and decree in C.M.A.No.11 of 2005 dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the proceedings of the Estates Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellant-writ petitioners and their predecessors in title claim to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 4876 square meters of land at Chilakalaguda, Bolakpura, Secunderabad for the last 80 years. A temple called Draupadi Temple is said to be in existence in the said property for the past several decades. When the 2nd respondent disputed the appellant-writ petitioners title and possession over the subject property, O.S.No.59 of 1967 was filed by them before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The said Suit was dismissed on 30.10.1973. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioners filed C.C.C.A. No. 27 of 1975 before the High Court which was dismissed on 12.04.1977. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed L.P.A. No. 191 of 1977 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.08.1977.
3. Thereafter the appellant-writ petitioners filed O.S.No.3121 of 1982 before the 1st Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad seeking injunction. This Suit was also dismissed on 03.04.1989. Aggrieved thereby the appellant-writ petitioners filed A.S.No.127 of 1989 which was also dismissed on 29.07.1994. Questioning the said judgment, they filed S.A.No.427 of 1994 and a Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 20.03.2003, while dismissing the Second Appeal, observed that it was open to the respondents to initiate proceedings to evict the appellant-writ petitioners in accordance with law.
4. Thereafter, the respondents invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act for short), and issued notices under Section 4 of the Act vide proceedings dated 18.08.2004 and 08.10.2004 respectively. As no reply was forthcoming, orders were passed under Section 5(1) of the Act, vide proceedings dated November, 2004, recording that, since the predecessors in title of the appellant-writ petitioners had refused to receive the notices, and the registered notice with acknowledgment due sent to them was also returned undelivered, the notices were published in newspapers; and the predecessors of the appellant-writ petitioners were directed to vacate the subject premises within 30 days from the date of publication of the order i.e. on or before 24.12.2004. Against the said order, the appellant-writ petitioners filed an appeal, in C.M.A. No. 11 of 2005, under Section 9 of the Act before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad who, by his order dated 20.04.2007, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and, on W.P.No.12347 of 2007 being dismissed by order dated 13.04.2018, they have now invoked our jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
5. Before us Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioners, would submit that the respondents should have been relegated to the remedy of filing a Civil Suit for eviction, instead of resorting to the summary proceedings under the Act; in a summary enquiry, the question of prescription of title, by adverse possession, cannot be examined; disputes regarding title are not confined only to ownership, but also cover long standing possession; as the appellants-writ petitioners have perfe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
