High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\,4andamus declaring the action of the Respondents in referring the Property admeasuring Ac.5.0'l guntas in survey No.36/4/9 (old), 36/4/10 (New), situated at Gopanpally Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as Government Property in the pahanies and other Revenue Records, despite it being a private property and not taking any action on the representation of the Petitioner daled 12-03-2025, as being arbitrary, u nco nstitutiona I and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider J- the representation of the Petitioner dated 12-O3-2025 anc rectify the entries tn respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.Ol guntas in survey No36/,A/9 (old)' 36/4/10 (New), situated at C;opanpally Village, Sertingampally I\'1'rndal' Ranga Reddy District by menttoning it as private Iand/plots lA NO: 1 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheClrCUmstancesstated in the affidavit filed irl suoport of the petition, the High Co:r-i' ma;r be pleased to direct the respondents to initiate necessary action on the representation of the Petitioner daled 1 2-O3-2O25 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J. SATYA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14533 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court ma1' be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in referring the Property admeasuring Ac.5.01 guntas in survey No.36/A/9 (old), 36/A/10 (New), situated at Gopanpally Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as Government Property in the pahanies and other Revenue Records, despite it being a private property and not taking any action on the representation of the Petitioner dated l2-O3-2O25, as being arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequcntl_\, direct the respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 12-03-2025 and rectify the entries in respect of land admeasuring Ac.s.Ol guntas in survel, No.36/A/9 (old), 36/Ai 10 (New), situated at Goparrpally Vitlage, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by mentioning it as private land/plots and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hontrle Court may deem ht and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. [t is stated that originally, land admeasuring Acs. 5.01 guntas rn Survey No.36/A/9 (old) (36/e/ 10 (new)), situated at Gopanpally Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the subject properfy) belongs to onc Mohammed Yasin, who has acquired the same from the covernment uide Proceedings No.RT.No.4504 / 1960 dated 13.O9.1960, which was allotted by Board of Revenue, Hyderabad under Government Servants Quota and the subject property se2ed to be a Government property and had become a private property of Mohammed Yasin. It is further stated that Mohammed Yasin sold the subject property to Sri P.Prabhakar Rao and Sri Poichaiah through registered Sale Deed uide Document No.2792 of 1980 dated 04.09.1980 and the said Sri P.Prabhakar Rao and Sri Poichaiah sold the subject property to Sri P.Rajender Kumar and another through registered E 2 CVBR. J W.P.No.14533 of 2025 - Sale Deed uide Doc rment No.28 12 0t lg84 dated 30.( 14.1984 and the said Sri p.Rajender Kumar and another prepared a layout ar:d divided the subject property into 57 plots and sold the said plots to several purchasers through various registered sale deeds and all the ptot owners c rllectively started the petitioner Associati,:n and when some of the plot owners appiied for encumbrance certificate, the registration authorities st:rted that the subject property is a Govet-nment land under Laoni patta lhe grievance of the petitioner Association is that it submitted a representalion dated 12.o3.2O25 to the respondent authorities seeking rectification of e ntries in the revenue records, but till date the said representation was n >t considered by the respondent authoritLes. Hence, the prescnt writ petition

3. Considered the submissions of the lear -led counsel for the petitioner Association and learned Assistant Governmer t Pleader for Revenue appearing for the rrlspondents and iryith their consenl , this writ petition is disposed of at the aclmission stage. 4 . The pa rties to this writ pe tition are in' iting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, ard possession of the subject property. In view of the serious disputes with regard to right, titie and possession of the subject properly, a writ petition i; not the appropriate remedy to resolve ttrc inter se disputes between the par ies, especially in the absence of examination of the documents relating to ti le and possession of the respective partir:s. The questions as to who is the -ightful owner of the land in question; u'ho is in possession of the subject property, and if so, I 3 CVBR,.J w.P.No.14533 of 2O25 since when, how, and under what circumstances they claim to be in possession; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-d'-vis the true owner, etc., are rnaterial questions that arose for consideration in this writ petition. In my view, these are pure questions of fact' which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit' based on the evidence adcluced by the parties, and not in a writ petition hled under Article 226 of theConstitution of India' It has been consistently held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rights'

5. In Mohan Pandey vs' Usha Rani Rajgarial the Honbie Supreme Court observed as follows: "6:rcxx-x...[thasrepeatedll'beenheldbythisCourtasalsobyvariousHigh Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to ProPcrty rlghts bet$'ecn private persons and that the remedy under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged And in such ssue appropriate direction to the authority concerned lf a case, the Court rvill i the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon' she must avail of the remedy under the general larv including the Criminal Procedure Code. The H h Court cannot allou,the constitu tional ufl sdictiontobe u sed for decidi InT al are wa ofas ito dis utes aval ble lt is not Intende for rvhic h remedies under the Iaw civil or dtore lace medies eneral t. The urisdictionlss cial and ation available to a liti a and should not be exer cised cas uallv or lieh tlv." (emphasis suPPlied)'

6. ln Duarka ProrsoLd Agarual a' B'D' Aganoal2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: '(1992) 4 scc 61 '(2003) 6 scc 230 "The Htgh Court lvhile exercising a po\!.er ofjudicial revi(-, is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an r:-der passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 ol rhe Constitution of lndia cannot be invoked for resolution of a private la\,l dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public lar.r, charac er. lt is also well_ settled that a rvrit remedy is not available for resolution ol I property or a title dispute."

7. It is well settled law that this court is not h i!-ing jurisdiction to delve in[o the disputes and come to a conclusion with -cgard to right, title and possession of the parties in respect of the subl,rct property in the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of th,^ r entitlement being decided at the first instance.

8. In view of the above, this Court u,ithout goir g into the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to reregate the petitlr ncr Association to approach the competent Civil Court and seek ap >ropriate relief in accordance with law.

9. Accordingdy, this Writ pe[ition is disposed o -. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall sr: nd closed //TRUE COPY/i SD/- B.REKHA RANI REgrsrRAB, Au,lT*1 I I', secrtoru oFFlcER

1. THE Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secrel )riat, T.S.,Hyderabad. 2. THE CHIEF COwMISSIONER, Land and Administratro I, Narayayanguda,

3. THE ASST. Dl\/ISIONAL OFFICER, Serlingampally dirrsion, Survey Bhavan, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Ranga Reddy District. I. ongara Kalan, Ranga 5. REVENUE RE\/ENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Rajend:rnagar, office at Reddy District. Rajendernagar, Ranga Redy District. Serlingampally Ranga Reddy District.

6. THASILDHAR CUtV JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR, Serling rmpally I\/andal Office, 7. One CC to SRl. J. SATYA RAIVESH, Advocate [OPUC ] 8- Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court foitfre St ite of Telangana at 9. Two CD Copies; Hyderabad [OLIT] To, G HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ) /,,i, .\ ? 0 stP ?$fi ORDER WP.No.14533 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS )