Julakanti Linga Reddy v. 1. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Petition lJnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit fikrd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the resp('ndent authorities to forthwith remove the 33/'l 1 KV Electrical sub- station constructed in the petitioners plot bearing No.522 in Sy.No. 474lA admeasuring 2)0 Sq. Yards, Block No.31, within Miryalaguda l\,4unicipal limits, Miryalaguda Tcwn and lr4andal, Nalgonda District or othenrvise to initiate the land acquisition pror;eedings and pay the compensation as per the prevailing market value, pending lisposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N.HARI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY (SC FOR TELANGANA TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER 7 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No -3715 of 2024 ORDER This Writ Petition is hled to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking steps to remove the Sub-station constructed in the petitioners' ptot bearing No 522 in Sy.No.474/A admeasuring 200 Sq Yards' Block No 31' within Miryalaguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda Dislrict' without any right or authority inspite of the repeated personal visits followed by legal notice dt. 1O.o a.2023, as being illegal' arbitrary' u-njust' unconstitutional and consequenLly direcL the respondent authorities to remove the electrical Sub Station or alternatively toinitiatethelandacquisitionproceedingsandtopaythe compensation as per the per the prevailing market value'

2.Thebrieffactsofthecaseare|hatthepetitionbristhe absolute owner of open plot bearing No 522 in Sy No'474/A admeasuring 2OO Sq.Yards, Block No 31' within Miryalaguda Municipal limits, Miryalaguda Town and Mandal' Nalgonda District, having purchased the same from its lawful owner Smt.Nasirunnissa w/o Sayad Abdul Khadar' for valuable consideration by virtue of a registered Sale Deed bearing petitioner's vendor Doc.No.1O26 of 2Ol2 dt.l7-02-2012. The .l NBK, J rvp 3715 2024 -Y\ Smt. Nasirunnissa in turn purchased the s:Lme from one Panyam, Shivaramireddy through a registered Salc Deed bearing l)oc.No.2578l 1999 dt. 17-O8-1999.

3. The petitioner, who is an agriculturist, wen t to USA to see his son and taking advantage of the same the respondent aulhorities have illega11y trespassed into his pLot by break opening the lock put to his gate and constructed 33/ 11 K.V.Sub Station without following due procedurr: contemplated under la,v. Though the petitioner questioned respondents No.2 and 3, there was no proper response, as such. the petilioner was constrained to issue legal notice dated 1O.O8.2O23 for removal of the Sub-Station or else to initiate leLnd acquisition procee dings for payment of compensation as pe r the prevailing _ market r,aluc, however, the respondents did not give any reply despite r:ceiving the legal notice.

4. In reply to the above petition averments, the learned Standing Cbunsel for the respondents hled detailcd counter and mainly contended that on 04 .06.2012 the Tahsildar, Miryalagr-rda has handed over government land lo an extent oI Ac. 1.OO in Sy.No.337 (Bancharai) of Miryalaguda Municipal Limits, l,lalgonda District, wherein the sard 3 3 / 1 1 KV Sub \ ----/' I 3 NBK, J wp_3715 2024 Station, Eedullagudern was constructed by the respondents and inaugurated and charged on 2Z.Og.2OlS. tt is further contended that the petitioner is the owner of prot No.522 in Sy.No.474/A, whereas the sub-station was constructed in Sy.No.337 about 9 years ago, which is government.

5. In repiy to the counter filed by the respondents, the petrtioner filed rejoinder and contended that the land of the petrtroner is different from the land as claimed by the respondents as both the lands are situated in different survey numbers and in such circumstances, the responclents ought to have initiated steps for conducting survey as per law [o ascertain the land allotted to their company.

6. Heard Lhe learned counsel for the petitioner as well aS the learned Standing Counsel for the TSTRANSCO/TSSpDCL and perused the record. t

7. Admittedly, both the parties are claiming rights over the same property. The petitioner alreged to have purchased the land to an extent of 2OO square yards in sy.No.474/A on 77.O2.2O72 and whereas the respondents are contending that the Tahsildar, Miryaraguda has handed over government land to .r' . \ 4 NBK, J wp 3715,2024 an exterlt of Ac.1.O0 in Sy.No.337 (Bancharai) of Miryalaguda Municipal Limits, Nalgonda District on 04.06.2O12. The survey number an d the extents of the property as claimcd by both the parties are different. It is the petitioner, who has filed the present wnt petition and in such circumstances;, the petitioner ought tc have initiated necessary steps for conducting survey of the subj:ct land for proper identification of the land.

8. TLough the petitioner contented thht takine advantage of the fact that whe n he had been to USA to str: his son, the respond,:nts have constructed sub-station, thc petitioner failed to furnis,h thc details as to when he had been tc USA i.e., date, month cr at least the year during which went to USA and as to when hc returned from USA. Further, the petitioner contended that he hacl bcen visiting his plot every now ..ra il-r!.1 but it is to be seen that six months after the alleged pr-rrchase of the pctition( r, the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda has handed over government land to an extent of Ac.1.O0 in Sy.No.337 (Bancharai) of Miryalaguda Municipal Limits, Nzdgonda District i.e., on 04.06.20L2 and constructed sub-station in the year

2075. lf at all the petitioner has been visiting his plot every now and the e, certainly he would have come to know about the -at 5 NBK, J wp_3715 2024 construction of the sub-station in his land and raised objection. Even as per the version of the petitioner, he visited the land under dispute in the month of May, 2023 i.e., I I years after handing over of the land to the respondents by Tahsildar, Miryalaguda and 8 years after the construction of sub-station. Thus, the petitioner failed to substantiate that he is not aware of the construction made by the respondent authorities in the subject land during the period of more than a decade.

9. It is the specific case of the respondents that the land, where the sub-station was constructed, was handed over to them by the Tahsildar. In such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have made the concerned Tahsildar as party to this writ petition.

10. Furthermore, if at all the respondent authorities have trespassed into the alleged land of the petitioner, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach competent civil and seek appropriate remedy. The petitioner has approached the Court after a delay of more than a decade from the date of concerned Tahsildar handing over the possession of the land under dispute to the respondents. It appears that in \t / 6 5 NBK, J wp 3715_2024 order to evade the delay in liling civil sui[, the petitioner has hle,l the present writ petition.

11. It is to be seen that there is no strict and predefined time limLt for hling a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Colrstitution and in normal circumstances courts generally expect a writ petition to be filed within zr. "reasonable time", which means that a signihcant deiay in hling the petition could learl to its dismissal, especially if it prejudices the other party. A Cons[itution Bench of Honourable iJupreme Court in Tilckchand Motichand & others Vs. H.B. Munshil made the follrwing observations on the question of delay and laches: "78. It seems to me, howeuer, that the aboue solution is not quite oppropiate for ,cetitions under Afiicle 32. A delay of 12 years or 6 gea'rluould make o strange bed-felloul uith a direction or order or uit in the nature of mandamus, certiorai ctnd prohibition. Beaing in mind the history of these uits I cannot belieue that the Constituent Assernbly had the intention that fiue Judges of this Court should sit together to enforce a fundamental ight at the instonce of a person, u.tho had without onA reasonable explanation slept ouer his ights for 6 or 12 gears. The history of these utits both in England and tLrc U.S.A. conuinces me that the utderlging idea of the Constittttion was to prouide an expeditious and authoritatiue remedg against the inroads of the State. If a claim is barred under the Limitat,ion Act, unless there are exceptional ciranmstances, prima facie it is ' ltor ey t scc r ro 7 NBK, J wp_3115_2024 a stale claim and should not be entertained by this Court. But euen if it is not banred under the Indian Limitation Act, it may not be entertained bg this Court if on the facts of the case there is unreasonable delay. For instance, if the State had taken possession o.,f propertA under a law alleged to be uoid, and if a petitioner comes to this Court 1 1 years after the possession taas taken bg the State, I tuould dismiss the petition on the ground of delag, unless there is some reasonable explanation. The fact that a suit for possession of land tuould still be in time u-tould not be releuant at all. h is difficult to lag doun a precise peiod begond which delay should be explained' I fauour one Aear because this Court should not be' approached lightlg, and competent legol aduice should be taken and pros and cons carefullg uteighed before coming to this Court. It is common knowledge that appeals and representations to the highe'r authoities take time; time spent in pursuing these remedies mo-A not be excluded under the Limitation Act, but it mag ordinarilg be taken as a good explanation for the delag."

12. Further, in Ramchandra Shankar, Deodhar & others v' State of Maharashtra & others2, wherein it was obberved that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on ground of latches or delay is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai3 the Honourable Apex Court observed that if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ., (19q4) 1 SCC 317 t 1196512 S.C.R. 577, 6t2-62O 8 e NBK, J wp__3715 2024 .1 ordinaril'r to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus. It was further observed that everL if there is no such delly the Government or the statutory authority against whom the consequential relief is prayed for raises a prima facie triable issue as regards the availability of such relief on the merits on grounds like limitation, the Court sh,:uld ordinarily refuse to issue the writ of mandamus for such payment. In both these kir.ds of cases it will be sound use of discretion to leave the party to scek his remedy by the ordinary mode of action in a civil cor- rt and to refuse to exercise in h is favour the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was furt rer observed that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court m.-rst be brought may ordinarily be takpn to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Ar-icle 226 can be measured.

13. In riew of the above principle laid down in the above said decisions, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner approached this Court at a very belatecl stage, more particula 1y, in the absence of any material to substantiate his contentions that only in his absence, the sub-station was built. -/ 7', 9 NBK, J wp 3715 2024

14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner failed to establish any of the grounds to succeed in the present writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as [o costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed HAVAN I SWAMY ISTRAR /-K.B ISTANT REG SECTTON OFFTCER LANGANA I/TRUE COPY// SAD, Ad R REDD P vocate [O V (sc ro R To ,| One CC to ne CC to

2.o TRA 3. Two ARI PRA SRI N.H EEDHA snt u.sn NSCO) Advocate toPucl CD CoPies SA GJP ,/' / ) i) .' ,':;;::r. ' O^':\,g\ I liEP 2025 ) HIGH COURT DATED:16t0712025 ORDER WP.No.37'15 of 2024 DISMISSII\IG THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (F 3 ) )