A writ petition cannot adjudicate serious disputed questions of fact which must be resolved in a competent civil court.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mrs. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner filed a Memo vide USR No. dated not pressing this writ petition against respondent No.3.

2. CASE OF THE PETITIONER

i) The petitioner had undertaken a project to develop low-cost housing for the benefit of employees of BHEL. The Housing Units were sold to respondent No.4, which in turn, allocated them to the employees of BHEL by taking all necessary permissions including layout approval from HMDA.

ii) In the sanctioned layout plan, dated 03.07.2014 and layout permit dated 21.06.2022, it has categorically mentioned that no road exists. The area in question is specifically designated for ‘future expansion’.

iii) It is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 1.02 guntas in Survey No.191/36, situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3482 of 2017, dated 03.03.2018 executed by M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited, its sister concern. Thus, it has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property.

iv) Thereafter, its name was mutated in revenue records. It also obtained conversion proceedings converting the aforesaid land from agricultural to non-agricultural.

v) Out of the aforesaid extent, the petitioner sold an extent of 3080 square yards to Mr. Vasireddy Nageswara Rao and Mrs. Vasireddy Vani under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.49230, 49231 and 49232 of 2018, all dated 03.12.2018. An extent of 1515 square yards was acquired by respondent No.2 for road widening. Thus, an extent of 485 square yards of land is left with the petitioner which is hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’.

vi) At the time of registration of sale deed in favour of Mrs. Vasireddy Vani, one of the boundaries is inadvertently mentioned as ‘road’. Therefore, a rectification deed was presented mutually with respondent No.3 vide P. No.570 of 2024, dated 06.11.2024. Instead of rectifying the said mistake, respondent No.3 sought a clarification from respondent No.2 as to the existence of road. Taking advantage of the same, on 02.11.2024 respondent No.2 accompanied by Town Planning Officer of Tellapur Municipality and its staff at the instance of local political persons entered into the subject property and removed the storage container placed on the subject land without issuing any notice or opportunity.

vii) The petitioner also gave representations dated 04.11.2024, 11.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to prevent encroachments. Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same.

viii) Respondent No.2 instead of clarifying the query raised by respondent No.3 about existence of road in municipal records, gave a reply dated 30.11.2024 to respondent No.3 stating that as per sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, a road is existence. Neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.4 has any right to lay a road on the subject land.

3. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2

i) Respondent No.2 denied the ownership of petitioner to the extent of Acs.1.02 guntas in Survey No.191/36 of Kolluru Village.

ii) The land in Survey No.191/36 is part of the sanctioned layout dated 03.07.2014 and 21.06.2022, and there is no mention of specific extent of land in Survey No.191/36 is covered in layout.

iii) The future expansion area was further sub-divided by the petitioner into three plots and sold to third parties vide the aforesaid sale deeds. In all the said documents, the subject land is sh