SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 5 Supreme(Telangana) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
Macherla Nagaraj Goud and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 8424 and 9451 of 2024
Decided On: 03-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Giri Krishna
For the Respondents: GP, AGP, Somu Srinivas Reddy, AGP, M. Rama Mohan Reddy, SC and M. Damodar Reddy

Administrative authorities cannot adjudicate on title and possession disputes while civil suits are pending, especially when interim injunctions are in place.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 - Show-cause notice issued by the Additional District Collector regarding layout permission - The court found the notice illegal as it was issued without jurisdiction during the pendency of title disputes in civil suits - The court emphasized that disputes regarding title and possession must be resolved by a competent civil court. (Paras 12, 14)

(B) Jurisdiction - The authority cannot decide title and possession disputes while interim injunctions are in place - The court reiterated that administrative bodies must respect ongoing civil proceedings and cannot interfere in matters of title. (Paras 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a show-cause notice regarding their layout permission, asserting ownership of land in Survey No.110, while the respondents claimed conflicting rights over the same land, leading to multiple civil suits and interim injunctions. (Paras 3, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the show-cause notice and the proceedings of the District Collector, affirming that the disputes over title and possession must be resolved in civil court. (Paras 14, 16)

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the show-cause notice and the authority's jurisdiction to decide on title and possession amidst ongoing civil suits. (Paras 12, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative actions regarding land disputes must respect the jurisdiction of civil courts, especially when interim injunctions are in effect. (Paras 12, 14)

Result: Writ petitions disposed of, setting aside the impugned notice and proceedings.

ORDER :

Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, Mr. S. Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, Mr. M. Rama Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 Municipality in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and respondent No.3 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024 and Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and the petitioners in W.P. No.9451 of 2024.

2. W.P. No.8424 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4, particularly, respondent No.3 not to enforce the impugned notice dated 21.03.2024 by holding it illegal and to set aside the same.

3. Whereas, W.P. No.9451 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners therein to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 declaring Ac.0-22 guntas of land towards west side of NH167K in Survey No.110, situated at Choutabetla Village, Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District as disputed land; directing respondent No.3 to revoke the approved DTCP layout of the petitioners in respect of the said land; for a consequential action of respondent No.3 in issuing rejection letter dated 04.12.2023 rejecting DTCP layout of the petitioners in respect of the said land, the further action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in granting approval for tentative layout plan of respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide application dated 15.03.2024 by including disputed Ac.0-22 guntas of west side land as illegal; against the orders dated 04.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5456 of 2024; and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the DTCP layout of the petitioners as granted earlier vide application dated 04.06.2023 by rejecting the layout of respondent Nos.4 and 5, dated 15.03.2024.

4. The petitioners in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 are arrayed as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, while the petitioners in W.P. No.9451 of 2024 are arrayed as respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 are hereinafter referred as the parties according to their ranks.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS IN W.P. No.8424 OF 2024:

5. Originally, one Mr. Jambulaiah and Mr.Yellanna, brothers, were original owners of the land admeasuring Acs.10.38 guntas in Survey No.110, Choutabetla Village, Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. They owned equal rights in the said extent (i.e., Acs.5-19 guntas each) vide registered sale deed bearing document No.339 of 1977, dated 07.04.1977.

    (i) The father of the petitioners, late Eadanna, had purchased an extent of Acs.5.19 guntas from Mr.Jambulaiah and gifted an extent of Acs.2.29 guntas of land to petitioner No.1 and an extent of Acs.2.30 guntas of land to petitioner No.2 under registered documents bearing Nos.3069 and 3068 of 2009, both dated 28.08.2009. Pursuant to the same, their names were mutated in revenue records and were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and thereby they are the absolute owners and possessors of the said respective extents in Survey No.110/A.

    (ii) The other extent of Acs.5.19 guntas pertaining to Mr. Yellanna was inherited by his legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein.

    (iii) While so, during the year 2022, the National Highway Authority had laid road for Highway No.167-K through Survey No.110 to an extent of Acs.1.18 guntas of land. The said land was acquired from the portion of respondent Nos.5 and 6 out of Acs.5.19 guntas, which is evident from the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land of the petitioners herein is on the western side of the National Highway, while the land of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is on the eastern side of the Highway as is evident from the sketch map of Public Information

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      AI

      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top