2021 Supreme(AP) 345

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
D. Ramesh, J.
Palagiri Nageswar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 13023 of 2020 & 12833 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2021

Identification of property is a factual issue to be determined by the competent civil court, and the High Court will not interfere in such matters.

Headnote:

HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1965 - SECTIONS 452 AND 461 - SURVEY OF LAND - IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - WRIT PETITION - ABUSE OF 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 house site and construct apartments without any right, title, interest, and possession over the said property. Petitioners complained to the municipal corporation of Kadapa, which issued a notice to the respondent S.K.V. Constructions stating that without prior approval of the municipal corporation, they cannot undertake any construction under sections 452 and 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1965. Petitioners also issued a legal notice to Kadapa municipal corporation and other officials not to grant or issue any approvals for construction of any building in favor of S.K.V. Constructions or any other persons during the pendency of the litigation. Petitioners filed a suit in O.S.38/2019 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa against one Nelaturu Madusudan Reddy and Chittem Uma Sankar, which is pending adjudication. Petitioners applied to the municipal corporation of Kadapa to conduct a survey of the land by the municipal surveyor and give a quietus to the lis. Petitioners made a complaint to the police on 27.5.2020. Petitioners filed an application for survey through mee-seva by filing challans on 25.6.2020, but no action was initiated by the authorities. Petitioners approached the Secretary, Sachivalayam on 03.7.2020 asking the authorities to survey the land and give a sketch, which is also pending. Petitioners filed O.S.No.342/2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondent nos.9 to 14 seeking declaration and injunction against them and they have also filed an I.A. under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, which is pending. Despite pendency of litigation and repeated requests made by the petitioners, the authorities are contemplating to issue permission in favor of S.K.V.Constructions for construction of apartments. Petitioners filed writ petitions seeking to declare the action of respondent no.7 in not conducting any survey of the land in Sy.No.560/1 Buddayapalle village of Chinnachowk area, Kadapa town and 6th respondent trying to approve the apartment plan and give consent for the construction of an apartment for the application submitted by the respondents 10 to 15 in the house plot in an extent of 484 sq.yards/0-10cents in sy.no.560/1 of Telecomnagar of Chinnachowk village of Kadapa city though objected by the petitioner who is the real owner and pending civil suit/s as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent no.7 to conduct a detailed survey of the subject land besides also not to give consent for the construction of any apartment for the application submitted by the respondents 10 to 15 in the subject house plot.

Finding of the Court:

The issue involved in the present writ petitions are location/identification of the land which requires evidence and the same can be done only on appreciation of evidence by the competent civil courts which is having jurisdiction. On perusal of the decree passed by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.183/2012 it is made clear that the vendor of the petitioners herein are not in a position to locate or identify the property. Hence the said suit was dismissed. When the vendors of the petitioners themselves are not in a position to locate/identify the plots and after dismissal of the suit, these petitioners have purchased the property, that itself shows that even at the time of sale transaction, they are not in a position to identify the particular piece of land.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners have a right to claim the property of the respondents 10 to 15? 2. Whether the municipal surveyor has conducted any survey and identified the property?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners have no right to claim the property of the respondents 10 to 15 as per the findings of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.183/2013. 2. The municipal surveyor has conducted a physical verification along with Zinka Subbareddy and given an endorsement after taking the factual position into consideration that it is not possible to survey the said land in view of the existence of telecom residential colony and also the existing houses.

Final Decision: Both the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order granted in the writ petitions stand vacated. No costs.