THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.16535 of 2020

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“...to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No 4 in issuing the Endorsement No.B/1518/2020, dated 03/08/2020 by acting as a civil court deciding the rights title and possession of the parties in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.442 of Bhongir Town and Mandal Yadadri Bhongir District Erstwhile Nalgonda District at the behest of the respondent No 5 and thereby removing the entries made in favour of the petitioner No.1 from the revenue records to an extent of Acs.2.30 guntas being illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the said Endorsement and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to restore the entries in the revenue records/online in favour of the petitioner No 1 to an extent of Acs.2.30 guntas in Sy.No.442/A4 of Bhongir Town and Mandal Yadadri Bhongir District and pass...”

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers and petitioner No.1 is their mother. Originally, father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by name Sri Pratap Reddy acquired the land to an extent of Acs.2.30 guntas in Sy.No.442/A4, situated at Bhongir Town and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. After the demise of Sri Pratap Reddy, the subject property was mutated in the name of petitioner No.1 as pattedar and she was also issued with pattedar passbook and title deed vide No.T30050210998, Khata No.2272. When the matter stood, respondent No.5, who possess the land towards northern side of the subject property without having any right, illegally tried to interfere with the subject property. While the petitioners taking steps to challenge his action before the concerned Civil Court, surprisingly, the petitioners were served with an endorsement No.B/1518/2020, dated 03.08.2020 by respondent No.4. The averments of the impugned endorsement reveals that basing on an application, dated 16.07.2020 allegedly submitted by respondent No.5 alleging that the petitioners are interfering with his property to an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas in Sy.No.442 and the VRO, Bhongir and Mandal Girdavar, Bhongir Mandal has submitted a report in July, 2020 by conducting enquiry into the matter and that upon issuance of notices, dated 16.07.2020, 25.07.2020 and 30.07.2020 has allegedly conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of various third parties and also discussed about the petitioners family and divided the shares and thereby proceeded to decide the title and possession dispute and finally concluded that petitioner No.1 is not having any land in the subject property.

3. As a matter of fact, there was no such enquiry conducted and no notice or any other documents were issued and as such, the alleged report in the months of July, 2020 is having no basis. Moreover, respondent No.4 has no authority or jurisdiction to act upon application submitted by any party muchless respondent No.5 regarding the interference into a private property where the competent Civil Court is only having the jurisdiction, but respondent No.4 without having any jurisdiction has issued the endorsement, which raises a speculative litigation between the parties. The impugned endorsement does not refer to any date or mode of service of the alleged notices, which clearly shows the conduct of respondent No.4 who passed the impugned endorsement in an illegal manner. Taking advantage of the same, respondent No.5 continued in his illegal interference into the subject property and as such, petitioner No.1 filed a Suit O.S.No.150 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir against respondent No.5 seeking for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering into the