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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12668

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Nandu Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Secunderabad Cantonment Board – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 36725 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ch. Venu Kumar
For the Respondents: K.R.Koteswara Rao

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the adjudication of complex disputed questions of title, ownership, or possession of immovable property, which require a detailed appreciation of documentary evidence and proof best suited for a competent civil court.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed questions of title and fact - Petitioner challenged refusal of building permissions, demolition of structures, and stoppage of bore-well digging alleging violation of fundamental rights - Respondent asserted land is vested in it as open space of sanctioned layout under Cantonments Act - Held, writ jurisdiction is not intended for adjudication of disputed questions of title and possession which require evidence - Matter involves complex civil dispute regarding extent of land conveyed and validity of title - Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims ownership of property measuring 176.66 square yards based on a 2018 sale deed, having obtained mutation from the respondent Board. The respondent contends that the land forms part of 40% open space of a sanctioned society layout which vests in the Board under the Cantonments Act. The Board denies the existence of the structures allegedly demolished and maintains that all building applications were rightfully rejected due to the land's classification as public open space.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the controversy revolves around competing claims of title, the specific extent of land legally available, and the characterization of the land as B-2 or layout open space. These are disputed factual issues that cannot be determined in writ proceedings.

Issues: Whether the Court can adjudicate upon disputed questions of title and possession of immovable property under Article 226 and whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for resolving complex civil disputes involving title and evidence-based factual controversies. A petitioner must establish clear title and right to property prior to seeking relief such as mandamus for building permissions.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to approach a competent civil Court.

Table of Content
1. parties' claims and factual background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's refusal to adjudicate disputed civil titles under writ jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. conclusion that civil disputes require civil court resolution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

O R D E R:

Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing SCB House No.04-08-329 situated in Survey No.169/2, admeasuring 176.66 square yards, abutting Picket, West Marredpally Village Road, Secunderabad Cantonment, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1645/2018 dated 08.08.2018 from (1) Mr. Rama Raju Chandrakala W/o late R. Narasimha Rao, (2) Ms. Rama Raju Anusha D/o Mr. R Narasimha Rao, (3) Sri M. Prashanth Babu S/o Late Mr. Paramaiah, (4) Mr. Mohd. Vasiuddin S/o Mr. Mohd. Rafiuddin and (5) Mr. M. Santhosh S/o Mr. M. Satyanarayana Murthy and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since then.

1.1. It is stated, originally the property belonged to Sri M.A. Raheem who purchased the land from the Pattadar Late Dr. Pulla Reddy Bolumpalli of Bowenpally, Secunderabad and the land in Survey No.169/2 is classified as B-2 land under the management of the State Government as per revenue records, and the said Mr. M.A. Raheem constructed a pan tile house in 1962 and resided therein till 12.04.2007. Upon his death in 1989, his son Mr. M.A. Aleem succeeded to the property and obtained building sanction for an area of 1071 square feet vide Secunderabad Cantonment Board Resolution No.3(26) dated 28.04.1978 and constructed the house after demolishing the old structure.

1.2. Sri M.A. Aleem executed a registered Gift Deed dated 18.11.2006 bearing Document No.2330/2006 in favour of his son Mr. Mohd. Azmath Aleem, who, in turn, sold the property to (1) Mr. R. Narasimha Rao S/o Mr. R. Chandra Mouli, (2) Ms. Rama Raju Anusha, (3) Sri M. Prashanth Babu, (4) Mr. Mohd. Vasiuddin and (5) Mr. M. Santhosh vide registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.701/2007 dated 12.04.2007, and thereafter, Petitioner purchased the same under Sale Deed dated 08.08.2018. After purchase, he made an Application dated 04.02.2019 for mutation and the Secunderabad Cantonment Board issued proceedings bearing No.SCB/TS/Mutation/F/1019 dated 26.07.2019 mutating the property in his name, assigning SCB House No.04-08-329 and Petitioner has been paying property tax.

1.3. Petitioner intended to renovate the existing structure, which was about 40 years old, and on the advice of the Area Engineer, submitted the Application dated 18.11.2019, which was refused vide letter dated 27.11.2019 on the ground that the land falls in GLR Survey No.481/268 classified as B-4 vacant land under the management of the Cantonment Board. According to petitioner, the said objection is contrary to the earlier building sanction granted vide Resolution No.3(26) dated 28.04.1978 in respect of the same property and is inconsistent, and the direction to resubmit plans indicates lack of certainty in the Respondent's stand.

1.4. Upon representation, the Chief Executive Officer addressed the letter dated 07.01.2020 to the Defence Estate Officer seeking survey and no objection who vide letter dated 12.02.2020 clarified that the land falls in GLR Sy.No.474 classified as B-2 under State Government and that no defence land is involved. Further, the District Collector, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 01.05.2021, based on joint survey by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad and Tahsildar, Tirumalgiri Mandal, clarified that land admeasuring 119 square yards in Sy.No.169/2 is classified as B-2 Patta and also noted that an extent of 50 square yards falls in Sy.No.170 classified as "Abadi Gramam Sarkari".

1.5. Despite such clarifications from two authorities that the land does not belong to the Central Government, Respondent failed to consider the same and continued to treat the land as B-4 land, which amounts to non-application of mind, contends p

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