The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes involving property title are within the jurisdiction of civil courts, and seeking remedies under civil law is the proper course of action.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P. No. 99 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner/appellant came up before this Court stating that her great grandfather was the original pattadar and possessor of the lands in survey Nos. 54 and 56 admeasuring Acs. 21.27 guntas of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The great grandfather was having only son, namely Nimmala Rama Krishnaiah, who died leaving behind four sons, namely Nimmala Veeraiah, Nimmala Raja Mallaiah, Nimmala Prabhakar and Nimmala Venu Gopal. The petitioner contended that the property in question was partitioned among the four sons and certain lands admeasuring Acs. 5.19 guntas were allotted to the grandfather of the petitioner, namely Nimmala Veeraiah, who died leaving behind one son, namely Nimmala Srinivas Goud and two daughters. Pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner and the petitioner, after the death of her father and mother, came to know that a sale deed has been executed on 03.01.2008 in respect of the land which came to the share of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has further stated that a cancellation deed also took place on 30.06.2008 and one G.K. Reddy filed W.P. No. 19018 of 2008 challenging the cancellation done unilaterally before this Court and the said writ petition is pending. The petitioner has also stated that she has also filed a writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 31304 of 2021. However, she came to know that her family members have jointly sold the property to some other vendors and the layout has been approved and building permission has been granted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in the matter. The petitioner’s contention is that she has submitted a representation on 09.12.2021 in respect of the building permission granted on 31.03.2021 and the said representation has not been considered nor has it been decided. The relief prayed by the petitioner as reflected in paragraphs 10 and 11 read as under:

“10. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation dated 09.12.2021 made by the petitioner for cancelling the building permission accorded in favour of 3rd respondent vide File No. 1/C21/15513/2019, dated 31.03.2021 in accordance with Section 450 of GHMC Act, 1955 is highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 09.12.2021 made by the petitioner for cancelling the building permission accorded in favour of 3rd respondent vide File No. 1/C21/15513/2019, dated 31.03.2021 in accordance with Section 450 of GHMC Act, 1955 and pass such other order or orders, that are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

11. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to stop the construction undertaken by the 3rd respondent in Plot Nos. 763, 763/1, 763/2/Part, 763/2, 763/3, 763/4, 763/5 and 763/6 situated at Sy. No. 54, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and paragraphs 4 to 11 of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking into consideration the relevant facts, a duty caste upon the Commissioner to consider the representation of petitioner, but he failed to do so and hence, there may be a direction to the respondents to consider her representation. Learned counsel has r