2021 Supreme(AP) 326

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
D. Ramesh, J.
Arunachalam Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanams - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13023 of 2020, 12833 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2021

The court cannot interfere in the location/identification of the land when there is a factual dispute and the matter is pending before the civil court.

Headnote:

HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTIONS 452 AND 461 - SURVEY OF LAND - IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - WRIT PETITION - ABUSIVE PROCESS OF LAW:

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners purchased land in Sy.No.560/1 of Telecomnagar, Chinnachowk village of Kadapa city. Unofficial respondents tried to encroach the land and construct apartments without any right, title, interest, and possession. Petitioners complained to the municipal corporation, which issued a notice to the unofficial respondents under sections 452 and 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1965. Petitioners also issued a legal notice to the corporation and other officials not to grant any approvals for construction in favor of the unofficial respondents. Petitioners filed a suit in the Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, against the unofficial respondents, which is pending adjudication. Petitioners applied to the municipal corporation to conduct a survey of the land and give a sketch. The corporation issued a notice to the unofficial respondents not to undertake any unauthorized construction without prior approval. Petitioners made a complaint to the police. Petitioners applied for a survey through mee-seva and paid challans, but no action was taken by the authorities. Petitioners approached the Secretary, Sachivalayam, asking the authorities to survey the land and give a sketch. Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a declaration and injunction against the unofficial respondents and a direction to the authorities to survey the land and give a sketch. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to maintain the status quo. The unofficial respondents filed a counter, denying the allegations and stating that they had purchased the property from rightful owners. The Assistant City Planner of the corporation visited the plots and issued an endorsement stating that there was no possibility to survey the land and fix the boundaries of the petitioners' land. The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, filed a counter, denying the allegations and stating that a detailed survey of the land was ordered and the Town Surveyor visited the land and found that the petitioners' alleged land was not in their possession. The S.K.V. Constructions filed a counter, stating that they had uploaded their plan for sanction and obtained a building permit. The court issued a stop-work order in view of the pendency of the litigation before the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The issue involved in the writ petitions is the location/identification of the land, which requires evidence and can only be done by the competent civil courts. The vendors of the petitioners were not able to locate or identify the property, and their suit was dismissed. The petitioners purchased the property after the dismissal of the suit, indicating that they were also unable to identify the particular piece of land at the time of the sale transaction. The court held that it cannot interfere with the facts of the writ petitions as there is a factual dispute, and the matter is pending before the civil court.

Issues: 1. Whether the court can interfere in the location/identification of the land when there is a factual dispute and the matter is pending before the civil court? 2. Whether the petitioners have abused the process of law by filing the writ petition when they have already filed a suit in the civil court and failed to obtain interim orders?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court cannot interfere in the location/identification of the land when there is a factual dispute and the matter is pending before the civil court. 2. The petitioners have abused the process of law by filing the writ petition when they have already filed a suit in the civil court and failed to obtain interim orders.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim order granted in the writ petitions was vacated.