Judicial review cannot adjudicate property title claims while assessing administrative actions; these should be properly contested in court.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2 vide RC No. E Office 364478/2024/ACP-IV/G1, dated 29.05.2024. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 has not considered the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.25966 of 1998 and WA.No.1359 of 2004 and passed the impugned proceedings, which deserve to be set aside.

2. The contempt case is filed alleging violation of the interim orders passed by this Court on 26.11.2024 in IA.No.1 of 2024, whereby this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' property for an extent of 1743 Square Yards in TS.No.1031, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Limits.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.6 had obtained permission for construction without having any right, title or interest over the property which belongs to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners purchased the property vide a registered sale deed on 31.07.2015 from their vendor, Sri K.S.N. Raju. It is also submitted that the vendors of the petitioners purchased the land by virtue of the registered sale deed on 05.06.1970 from one V.Manikyeswara Rao. It is also submitted that ever since the petitioners purchased the said property, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and have also constructed an asbestos sheet shed. It is also submitted that the competent municipal authorities have assessed the property for taxes and have also issued a house number for the property of the petitioners.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners purchased the property vide a registered sale deed on 31.07.2015. However, the Sub-Registrar did not release the registered document; the document was issued a pending No.P 383 of 2015. It is also submitted that the 2ndpetitioner filed an appeal before the District Registrar and Appellate Authority vide Appeal No.3 of 2023, aggrieved by the denial of registration and release of the registered document. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, had allowed the appeal and directed the concerned Sub Registrar to release the registered document.

5. Accordingly, the Sub-Registrar released the registered document to the petitioners on 27.04.2023. The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring 1743 square yards in TS.No.1031. It is submitted that on receipt of a complaint from a third party, the Electricity Department had disconnected the power connection to the petitioners' property. The petitioners filed a WP.No.32405 of 2022 challenging the action of removal of the electricity meter. This Court allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 18.11.2022. The respondents therein were directed to restore the electricity connection.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that, as things stood thus, the 6th respondent obtained building permission on 14.07.2020 over an extent of 608.88 square meters out of the total extent of land of 1743 square yards. It is submitted that the 6th respondent had played fraud and obtained the building permission. It is the case of the respondent no. 6 that a Development Agreement cum GPA was executed between the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 09.08.2012. On the strength of the said document, the 2ndrespondent had granted permission for construction. It is submitted that the 5th respondent claims to have acquired title over the property by virtue of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 14.08.1974. It