WP/23472/2015 of Syed Zakir Hussain S/o Syed Muzaffar Hussain Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2020

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.23472 of 2O15

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, is filed by the [petitioner, ]wherein the following [prayer ][is]made:

"....to issue a writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents inacquisition of the petitioner land for allotment ofweaker sections and constructed houses over thepetitioner plot bearing Nos.97 admeasuring 239sq.yds, Plot Nos.99 admeasuring 259 sq.yds, PlotNos.10o admeasuring 270 sq.yds and Plot Nos.103admeasuring 260 sq.yds, total admeasuring 1028square yards in Sy.No,149 part/ 152 [part, ]153 [part]situated at Village Dommara Pochampally,R,R.District, as illegal, improper, arbitraryu nconstitutiona l, consequently direct therespondent to award com pensatio n,/ a ltern ativeland/re-locate the petitioner in his above said landand pass such other order or orders,.."

2. Heard the arguments of Mr.Syed Zakir Hussain, thepetitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue appearing for [respondents ][and]perused the record.

3. Mr. Syed Zakir Hussain, the [petitioner, ]who appeared asparty-in-person, would submit that he is bona fide purchaser offour open Plots bearing 1) Plot No.97 admeasuring 239 sq.yds/2) Plot No.99 admeasuring 259 sq.yds, 3) Plot [No.100]admeasuring 270 sq.yds and 4) Plot No.103 admeasuring [260]sq.yds, in Sy.Nos.149 [part, ]152 [part ]and 153 [part ][situated ][at]Dommara Pochampally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, [Ranga]Reddy Districtrffom one Bongunuri Gopal [Reddy. ]It [is submitted]

.--.--**-- that when the petitioner tried to construct boundary fencing overthe subject plots,.the respondent No.3-Tahsildar, euthbullapurMandal, objected for the same, stating that the subject land fallsunder ceiling surplus area and the layout is unauthorised.Therefore, the petitioner made a representation before therespondent No.1-Principal Secretary, Revenue Department.Thereafter, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar, vide proceedingsNo.8/734/2072 dated 09.06.2012 submitted a report statingthat during the physical survey it was revealed that landadmeasuring Ac.15.26 gts in Sy.Nos.149, 152 and 153 ofDommara Pochampally Village, was taken over as ceiling surplusand it is covered by weaker section houses and police Station,Dundigal. Further, there is an unauthorised layout in theSy.Nos.149, 152 and 153 prior to taking over ceiling surplusland. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaintNo.924/2013/82 before the Upa-Lokayukta, against the revenueofficials, for not relocating his plots. The learned Upa-Lokayuktavide order dated 15.03.2014 rejected the petitioner,s complaint.Aggrieved by the same, the petiUoner filed Writ petitionNo.11264 of 2074, wherein the Division Bench of the erstwhileHigh Court of Judicature of Andhra [pradesh, ]at Hyderabad, videorder dated 15.04.2014 disposed of the writ petition observingthat findings of the learned Upa-Lokayukta, will not be bindingfactor, if the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum withhis grievance. The petitioner filed this writ petition challengingthe action of respondents in acquiring his lands for allotment to weaker sections and [.ultimately ]prayed to grant the relief asindicated above.

weaker sections and [.ultimately ]prayed to grant the relief asindicated above.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue, filed counter affidavit of respondent No.3and contended that the original pattadar Bogunuri Gopal ReddyS/o. Narayan Reddy, filed a declaration under Section B of theAndhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)Act, 1973 in File No.2147/M/1975, wherein the said pattadarwas declared as surplus holder and the land admeasuringAc.5.35 cents in Sy.No.149, the land admeasuring Ac.6.20 centsin Sy.No.152 and the land admeasuring Ac.3.83 cents inSy.No.153, total admeasuring Ac.15.15 gts situated at DommaraPochampally Village, was declared as ceiling surplus and afterfollowing due procedure, possession of the said lands was takenover. Out of said land admeasuring Ac.15.15gts in Sy.No.149(P),152(P) and 153(P), an extent of Ac.4.00gts was allotted to PoliceStation, Dundigal and the remaining extent, which is covered byhouses, has been allotted to Weaker Sections, It is furthercontended that the said B.Gopal Reddy, without obtaining anypermission, made plots of his patta land including the surplusland surrendered to the Government in File No.2147 lyl/1975.Furthermore, the land claimed by the petitioner is forming partof land allotted to the Police Station and weaker section housesand there is no provision to relocate the plots of the petitionersince it belongs to Government. It is further contended that thepetitioner instead of approaching the competent civil Court,seeking clpsification, localisation and identification of the property with boundaries, erroneously filed this writ petition andultimately prayed to dlsmiss the same.5. As seen from the material placed on record, the grievanceof the petitioner is that he is the bona fide purchaser of fouropen Plots bearing 1) Plot No.97 admeasuring 239 sq.yds, 2)Plot No.99 admeasuring 259 sq.yds, 3) Plot No,100 admeasuring270 sq.yds and 4) Plot No.103 admeasuring 260 sq.yds, inSy. Nos.149 part, 152 part and 153 part situated at DommaraPochampally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,from one B.Gopal Reddy, and when he tried to constructboundary fencing over the said lands, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar, objected for the same stating that the subject landswere declared as ceillng surplus, Thereafter, the petitioner filed acomplaint before the Upa-Lokayukta, Hyderabad, and the saidcomplaint was rejected vide order dated 15.03.2014. Aggrievedby the same, the petitioner flled Writ Petition No.11264 of 2074before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradeshat Hyderabad, seeking writ of certiorari in respect of the orderdated 15.03.2014 passed by the Lokayukta, Hyderabad, inComplaint No.924/2013182 and quash the same andconsequently, direct the concerned authority to demarcate theplot Nos.97, 99, 100 and 103 of the petitioner total admeasuring1028 sq.yards situated in Sy.No.149/A (part), 152/A (part) and153/A (part) Domara Pochampally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, to include the name of the petltloner in theR.O.R records and to issue No Objection Certificate from the 3'drespondent under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the [erstwhile High ][Court, ][after ][hearing ][the]matter at length, was [pleased ]to [dispose ][of ][the ][said ][writ ][petition]vide order dated 15.04.2014 [observing ][that the ][grievance ][of ][the]petitioner is civil in nature and the findings [recorded ][by ][the]learned Upa-Lokayukta, will not be [binding ][factor, ][if ][the]petltioner approaches the appropriate forum with [his ][grievance.]But the [petitioner ]has filed [this ]writ [petition, ][seeking ][the ][relief ][as]indicated above. Whereas [the ][contention ][of the ][respondents ][is]that the subject lands [were ][declared as ceiling surplus and ][the]possession was also taken over after following due [procedure]and the [petitioner ]is not in [possession ][of any ][piece ][of ][land.]

6. Here, in the [given ]facts and circumstances [of ][the ][case,]there is a serious dispute with [regard ][to ][title ][and ][possession ][of]the [petitioner ]over the subject [Iands. ][It ][is pertinent ][to ][state ][that]the contentions raised by both [sides ][cannot ][be ][adjudicated/]determined by this Court [in ][this ][petition filed ][under ][Article ][226 ][of]the Constitution of India. It [is ]apt to [state ][that ][if, ][in a ][petition]filed under Article 226 of the [Constitution ][of ][India, ][complicated]questions of Fact which require a regular and [full-fledged ][trial ][are]involved, lt is but [prudent ]that [the ][Court should ][refrain ][itself]from entertaining such [petition ]and [relegate ][the ][party ][to ][the]normal remedy to obtain redress [in ][a ][suit. ][In ][the ][given]circumstances of the [instant ][case, ][this ][Court ][while ][exercising the]power of judicial review under Article [226 of ][the ][Constitution ][of]India, cannot determine [the ][ownership ][and ][title ][of ][the ][petitioner]over the subject lands and [also ][the ][alleged ][acquisition ][of ][the]subject lands by the [respondents. However, ][the ][petitioner is ][at]

liberty to file a civll suit [before ][the ][competent ][civil ][Court ][and]seek redressal of his [grievance, in ][accordance ][with ][law']

7With the above observations, [this ][Writ ][Petition is ][disposed]of, No costs.

The miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall ][stand]

closed.

SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVIASSISTANT REGJSTRAR//TRUE COPY/, ^u SECTION OFFICER

To,1. One CC to Sri Syed Zakir [Hussain Party ln ][Person ][OPUC]2. Two CCs to GP'For [Revenue, ][High Court ][for the State ][of ][Telangana. ][OUT]3. Two CD CopiesIVBC"$"- DATED: 3011212020

tnt 5l4 14:(ci-)12 lAN2021z.a^,**..()lJ.ORDER

WP.No.23472 ot 2015

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

,A