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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 47383

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
ESTATE OFFICER AND A.P.D. HYD. – Appellant
Versus
SMT.T.SATYA SUGUNA DEVI HYD. – Respondent
W.A. Nos.1052, 1053, 1054, 1055 and 1056 of 2010 | W.P. Nos.9083, 9584, 10391, 14417 and 20345 of 2001



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E.Madan Mohan Rao
For the Respondents: M.V.Durga Prasad

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971 does not permit authorities to resolve disputes over title and possession, which must be adjudicated in civil courts.

Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971 - Section 5-A(2) - Eviction proceedings challenged - Petitioners claimed ownership and possession of land in Survey No.19, while appellant alleged encroachment on Survey No.15 - Court held that the authority lacks jurisdiction to decide title disputes under the Act, which is designed for eviction of unauthorized occupants without title disputes - The impugned orders were quashed as the proceedings were found to be illegal. (Paras 16, 22, 36)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners questioned eviction orders under the Act, asserting their ownership of land in Survey No.19, while the appellant claimed encroachment on Survey No.15. The petitioners presented documents evidencing long-standing possession. (Paras 8, 11)

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge ruled that the authority could not adjudicate complex title disputes and quashed the eviction orders, emphasizing the necessity of resolving such disputes in civil courts. (Paras 22, 36)

Issues: The main issues involved the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act to adjudicate title disputes and the legality of the eviction orders. (Paras 21, 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act is not intended for resolving disputes regarding title and possession, which must be adjudicated in civil courts, affirming that eviction orders under the Act are invalid in such cases. (Paras 21, 36)

Result: Appeals dismissed, leaving parties to pursue available remedies under law.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals and parties involved. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. facts of the case regarding property ownership. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. arguments from petitioners and respondents. (Para 14 , 15)
4. court's analysis of jurisdiction and authority. (Para 16 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. judicial precedents on public premises and authority limits. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. conclusion and dismissal of appeals. (Para 38)

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)

Heard Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A. Nos.1052, 1055 and 1056 of 2010.

None for the remaining respondents.

2. The W.A. Nos.1052, 1053, 1054, 1055 and 1056 of 2010 have been filed against the common order dated 22.09.2009 passed in W.P. Nos.9083, 9584, 10391, 14417 and 20345 of 2001 by the learned Single Judge. The appellant herein is the Estate Officer & A.P.D., Airports Authority of India. The respondents in these appeals are the writ petitioners in the said writ petitions.

3. Since the common issues are involved in these intra court appeals between the parties they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

4. For the facility of reference, facts from W.A. No.1055 of 2010 are being referred to as a lead matter.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the impugned common order dated22.09.2009.

Facts of the case:

6. As in all the writ petitions, identical orders were questioned, the learned Single Judge had referred to the facts as narrated in W.P.No.14417 of 2001.

7. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners/respondents herein have questioned the orders issued under Section 5-A (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the respondent/appellant herein. Through the aforesaid orders, the respondent/appellant herein has ordered for removal of flats in a residential complex, namely ‘Archana Apartments’.

8. It is the case of the petitioner/respondent herein that one Smt. C.Kamsamma, claiming to be the owner and possessor of land to an extent of 600 square yards in the premises bearing No.1-11-252/1/E in Survey No.19 of Begumpet, has sold her undivided share to the petitioner/respondent herein by registered sale deed dated 26.10.1994, bearing document No.3071/94. After purchase of the said plot, the petitioner/respondent herein has entered into an agreement for construction of flat bearing No.204 and the same was constructed, and ever since, the petitioner/respondent herein is in its possession and enjoyment.

9. As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner/respondent herein that one Sri Mamilla Krishna Reddy, who was the father of Smt.C.Kamsamma, was the original owner and possessor of the land as he has purchased the same from its earlier owner one Sri Hzaratulla by a registered sale deed bearing document No.6041, dated 5th Aban, 1358 Fasli, and the said property is given to Smt.C.Kamsamma by way of pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage. Afterwards, when there was a claim by her sisters also for the property, the said Kamsamma had filed a suit for declaration of title, in O.S.No.252 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 15.03.1991. Thereafter, she entered into development agreement with M/s.Naveen Constructions on 4th January 1993, to develop the said property and obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to construct an apartment complex, vide permission bearing No.415/12, dated 12th February 1993. The petitioner/ respondent herein has availed housing loan from Canara Bank and having paid the said amount to the vendor of the land, she got constructed the flat in question and is in possession of the same by

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