WP/27316/2005 of Smt. S.Pushpamma, Vs The University Of Hyderabad, on 30 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioners are the owners of an extent of Acs.25.16 guntas of land inSy.Nos14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 and 23 of Kancha Gachibowli, SerilingampallyMandal, Ranga Reddy District. For some time, it was under occupation of therespondent-University. The petitioners filed O.S.No.609 of 1979 in the Court of theAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was renumbered asO.S.No.183 of 1982; for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession.The suit is said to have been decreed on 19.02.1994. A.S.No.1054 of 1994 was filedagainst it, by the University, before this Court, and was dismissed on 17.11.2001.Ultimately, through E.P.No.11 of 2002, the petitioners secured the possession of theland.

The land of the petitioners is said to be in the middle of the campus of the University.There emerged a proposal between the petitioners and the respondent for exchangeof this land for another extent of Acs.12.17 guntas, which is situated abutting the The proposals proceeded to a substantial extent and the respondent agreed inprinciple. Accordingly, it addressed a letter, dated 09.01.2004, to the Government, toaccord its approval. The petitioners state that the matter did not proceed further andseek appropriate directions in this regard, lest the uncertainty continues further.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for therespondent.

Basically, the scope of interference in the matter of this nature is very limited.Exchange of the land between two individuals or agencies, is purely a matter ofdiscretion and there is no scope for it to be guided by any statutory provisions. Bethat as it may, the respondent herein agreed to the exchange of the land of thepetitioners of an extent of Acs.25.16 guntas for their land of Acs.12.17 guntas. Thegrievance of the petitioners as regards the uncertainty can certainly be understood.Had the matter been pending, this Court, certainly, would have issued necessarydirections to finalise it, so that the uncertainty can come to an end.

The learned standing counsel for the respondent has placed before this Court thecopy of the letter, dated 20.12.2005, addressed by the Special Chief Secretary toGovernment, through which, the proposal submitted by the respondent was rejected.In that view of the matter, no directions can be issued in this regard. If the petitionershave any problems in the matter of enjoying the land in question, they have to workout their remedies in the Civil Court.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________

kdl