Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20465
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
Mudunuri Janaki Rani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 25217/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ponnada Sree Vyas
For the Respondents: Arjun Chowdary
A Writ Court will decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available through pending civil litigation between the parties regarding the same property dispute.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Exercise of caution where alternate civil remedy exists - Pending civil suits between parties regarding property ownership and mutation - Writ court loath to interfere when efficacious remedy available before Civil Court - Abuse of process where litigant seeks to bypass court of competent jurisdiction.
(B) Property Law - Mutation of revenue records - Pending civil litigation - Suit for cancellation of documents - Writ petition seeking direction to revenue authorities to stop mutation during pendency of civil suits dismissed on grounds of availability of alternate efficacious remedy.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus against revenue authorities to refrain from mutating the names of private respondents in land records, citing pending civil suits for cancellation of sale and settlement deeds. The petitioner alleged fraudulent mutation attempts by the official respondents.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that there are multiple civil suits pending since 2021 regarding the same properties and parties. Relying on settled judicial precedents, the Court held that the civil court is the appropriate forum for seeking interim reliefs during the pendency of a suit, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used as an appellate or substitute mechanism for property disputes.
Issues: Whether a Writ Court should entertain a petition seeking property mutation restrictions when title disputes and cancellation suits are already pending before the Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an adequate, efficacious alternate civil remedy is available. The High Court cannot convert itself into a civil court or bypass the established judicial discipline of allowing civil courts to decide property disputes and interlocutory applications.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the property dispute and existing civil litigation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. writ jurisdiction is discretionary and excluded when alternate civil remedy exists. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. dismissal of the petition for being an abuse of process. (Para 17 , 18) |
The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader.
2. The Writ Petitioner herein is seeking the following relief:
“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the attempts of 4th respondent/Tahsildar for mutating the name of 7th respondent in the revenue records for the lands admeasuring an extent of (1) ac.1.23 cts in R.S.No.84-2, (2) ac.0.54 cts in R.S.No.84-4 (3) ac.2.69 cts in R.S.No.94-1 (4) ac.1.89 cts in R.S.No.94-2, (5) ac.1.28 cts in R.S.No.94-3, (6) ac.1.00 cts in R.S.No.84-5 and an extent of (7) ac.1.00 cts in R.S.No.84-5 of Eethakota village Ravulapalem Mandal, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District during pendency of the civil suits before the competent civil courts, and without verifying the validity and legality of the documents submitted for mutation as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the well-established principles of law and in violation to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to make any such mutations in respect of above properties during pendency of the civil suits before the competent civil courts and pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity and in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The facts of this case, as averred in the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, are that the father of the Writ Petitioner is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring an extent of:
i. Acs.1.23 cents in R.S.No.84-2,
ii. Acs.0.54 cents in R.S.No.84-4,
iii. Acs.2.69 cents in R.S.No.94-1,
iv. Acs.1.89 cents in R.S.No.94-2,
v. Acs.1.28 cents in R.S.No.94-3,
vi. Acs.1.00 cents in R.S.No.84-5 and
vii. Acs.1.00 cents in R.S.No.84-5
4. It is stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the father of the Writ Petitioner acquired the abovementioned properties through a registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.2013 and consequently got the name of the father mutated in the Revenue Record; that the father of the Writ Petitioner has obtained Pattadhar Passbook; that when the father of the Writ Petitioner had attempted to sell item Nos.vi & vii of the properties mentioned above, the Writ Petitioner herein has purchased the same for a valuable consideration under two registered Sale Deeds dated 06.11.2021; that the house property was settled in favour of the mother vide registered Settlement Deed dated 06.11.2020; while so, the Respondent No.6 (representing Respondent No.7) has filed two Suits against the Writ Petitioner and her father for cancellation of the registered Sale Deeds; that the said Respondents have also filed another Suit for cancellation of Settlement Deeds dated 06.11.2021; that, the Writ Petitioner, having come to know that the Respondent No.6 has fraudulently created a registered Settlement Deed dated 20.07.2021 in favour of the Respondent No.7 in respect of the entire property of the father of the Writ Petitioner, the father of the Writ Petitioner filed another Suit before the II Additional District Judge Court for cancellation of the Settlement Deed executed by Respondent No.6 in favour of Respondent No.7; that another Suit was filed against Respondent Nos.6 & 7 by the Writ Petitioner and her parents seeking cancellation of other Settlement Deeds executed by Respondent No.6 in favour of Respondent No.7 creating a life interest in favour of Respondent No.7.
5. It is als
