Point of law : Illegal construction – Encroachment of land – Private litigation - Avoiding a direct relief from civil court, the petitioner cannot choose relief in an indirect way, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed assailing the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in taking action against respondent Nos.4 to 7 who are trying to encroach the plots of the petitioner bearing Nos.51/A and 51/B in Sy.No.149/2/1/2/A admeasuring 222 sq. yards situated at Cheeryal village and gram panchayat, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, was that the petitioner purchased an extent of 222 sq. yards from Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Pannala Buchi Reddy vide document No.4168/2020 dated 14.5.2020. In the month of April 2021, when he inspected his plot, he came to know that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are trying to make constructions near his plot and trying to occupy it. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the third respondent and submitted a written complaint dated 23.4.2021 and requested to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction being made by the unofficial respondents. He also made representations before the second respondent in that regard, but no action has been taken. In spite of repeated requests, the third respondent neither conducted any spot inspection nor gave any response. The construction activity in the said plots is going on rapidly and if the same is not stopped, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury and it would even difficult for the third respondent to demolish the entire structure. Hence the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Pancahyat Raj and Rural Development.

4. The learned Government Pleader argued that the gram panchayat has more responsible works to attend rather than settling civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and in many matters offices of the gram panchayats are being burdened with such complaints to resolve their private issues, without approaching civil Court.

5. Admittedly, this is a private litigation between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondents are raising structures on the land upon which the petitioner is having right and interest. Sections 113 and 114 of the Panchayat Raj Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. The petitioner has not placed on record and has not pointed out under what provision of the statute he filed a complaint before the respondent authorities and their obligation to consider the representations. Since there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to deal with the representation of the petitioner, the legal right of the petitioner for the inaction of the respondents is not infringed. That basing upon the complaint of the petitioner, if the official respondents act against the unofficial respondents, it amounts to invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court having jurisdiction. It is not for the official respondents or even to this Court to decide right, title and interest of the parties over the property. It is the trial court which would appreciate the evidence and decide the matter. Once the issue of right upon the property is decided, the consequential relief of construction of houses upon the property of the petitioner can also be decided. Pending suit before the trial Court, the petitioner can always seek an interim relief of injunction if so advised. Bypassing trial Court, it is not open to the petitioner to involve the gram panchayat and approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be a shortcut method in justice delivery system. Avoiding a direct relief from civil court, the petitioner cannot choose relief in an indirect way, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner cannot agitate the cause of action, for which the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the competent civil court, before a w