The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, at Bhuvanagiri. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhuvanagiri Division, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

4. The Tahsildar, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. A Buyya Janardhan Goud, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.23-6-472, Sultan Shahi Street, Gowlipura, Hyderabad. 6. S. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged aboul4l years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.204, Larven Complex, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500 060.

7. R. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Pichaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business, R/o. FIat No. 2O4, LaNen Complex, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500 060.

8. Smt. Veta Ahalya Bai, W/o. Sudharshan, Aged about 76 years, Occ. Household, Ryo. H.No. 10-363/1/55, Sathireddy Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

9. Sri Veta Sudheer Kumar, S/o. Late Veta Ramachandraiah years, Occ. Business, Fi/o. H.No. 11-50812(old), 11-1-514 Dooth Bavi, Mylargadda, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. Ag (N ed about 50 ew), Plot No. 70, ,,.RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in ::.i!{g the nature of writ of rvrandamus, decraring the action of the Respondent No. 2 to 1 ln !9t 9:n:idering the request of the petitioner made through representation dated 2410812024 for not issuing the paitadar pass Books ,n-d rifle oeeos, in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 100-17 Gts. in sv.No. 82 parts, situatlt at Hyderpur Virrage, Bhoodan pochampaily Mandar, yadadri-Bhuvanugiii Diitri.f to any third party or parties. craiming on iarse and fabricated oocumints, ninJirg disposal of suit in o.s.No. 83 of 2019, on the fire of court oi Frin.iprr-oi"trict Judge, Bhongir and o.s.No. g of 2024, on the fire of ther court of denior civir Judge, Yadad ri-Bhuvanagiri.. District, at Bhongir, as ittegat, arbitrary, unconstitutiona I and against the prificipres of naturir justice, ani .bn."qr"ntrv direct the Respondents No. 2 to 4 not to issue pattadar passbook and tifle deed to any third party or parties, in respect of the suit tand in o.S.No. ag oi ioig ano O.S.No.9 ot 2024 tiil its disposal. - lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in suppo{ 9f t.ne peiition, if,e Higl, Court may n" pfurrlJ to direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to consider the re"presen.iation'of the petitioner dated 2410812024, pending disposal of writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: t . PyW.q Janardhan Goud, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business. R/o. H. No. 23-6 - 47 2, Suitan S fra fr i Sirbeil C-owr ip u ra, ti yo e ii Olo 2. S. Venkateshwara Rao, Q/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Ftat No. 204, t_arven Coniptdx-, Claitrn,u6rri,-OiirJihn.grr, Hyderabad-S00 060. R. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. pichaiah, Ag.ed about 31 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Flat No. 204, La rven Comotex, Cn Jiiinvi pu'ril biiJ,].ihrgrr, Hyd erabad_soo 060. ...PETITIONERS/RESpONDENT Nos.S to 7 AND 1 G. Venkatesh, S/o. Late p_arvathalu, Aged 42 years, Occ. Br,rsiness. R/o Hvderpur Virage, Bhoodan pochampirv ilianoaI, ?i?;a.Li;o;sl'iiii"i,iit.' "" ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. The State of Telanoana, B"p- Oy its principat Secretary, Revenue Department, Secreiariat, S;ifab;d, Hyje;5;;d:""' "

3. The District Collector, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, at Bhuvanagir. O lL:r[i"""re Divisionat Officer, Bhuvanagiri Division, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri 5 The Tahsirdar, Bhoodan pochampary Mandar, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District 6. Smt. Veta Ahalva Bai W/o. S^ud harsha n, Aged about 76 years, Occ. Househotd, Ryo. H. No. r o-eoCii lssl SiinirJo"jyffi ,r. Cotony. Ma tkajsiri, Hyderabad.

7. Sri Veta Sudheer Kumar, S/o. Late Veta Ramachandraiah Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 11-50812 (old), 11-1-514 (New), Plot No. 70, Dooth Bavi, lvlylargadda, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 4,8,9 (Respondent No.6 & 7 are not necessary parties in this petition) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order made in W.P. No.25356 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDRA R.AO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 9: SRI SRINIVAS RAO BODDULURI The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I l l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR R,EDDY WRIT PETITION No.25356 of 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Pctition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief "...to issue an appropiate turit, order or directic,n. more portiatlarlg one in the nature of 'Wit of Certiorari': i) Declctring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not consideing the request of the petitioner made through represefttation. dated 24.O8.2024 for not issuing the pottadar passbooks and tit[e deeds, in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.100.17 gts., in Sy.No.82 parts, situated at Httderopur VilLage, Bhoodon Pochampallg Mondal, Yadodi-Bhuuanagii Distnct, to an1 third parties, cloiming on false and. fabicated documents penr)ing disposol of suit in O. S.lVo.83 of .2019 on the f.le of the Senior Ciuil Judge, Yadadi-Bhuuanagiri Distict at Bhongir, as tllegal. arbitrary and contrary to laut; and ii) Consequentlg, direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to issue pattadar passltook and title deed to ang third parties ir,, respect of the suit laru| i.n O.S.No.83 of 20t9 and O.S.No.9 of 2024 tilt its dlsposal ar,o,rss epproprlote order..."

2. The case of the petitioner is that his grandfather i.e., Sri Gangadevi Bucl-raiah has purchased land to an extent of Ac.124.15 gts., in Sy.No.82, situated at Hyderpur Vill,rge, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, lrom one Sri V.Ramchandraiah, under registered sale de,ed, dated 11.01.1965. After the demise of the grandfather of the 2 petitioner, the father of the petitioner had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and after the death of his father, the petitioner and his family members have been in possession and 'enjoyment thereof. The children and other legal heirs of the said Sri V.Ramachandraiah, who is the vendor is his grandfather, by creating fictitious and frauduient sale documents, are claiming right over the subject property. Respondent Nos.S to 9, basing on the said documents, are disputing the right and title of the petitioner and his family members over the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner and others have instituted suits in O.S.No.g3 of 2Ol9 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Bhongir, and O.S.No.9 of 2024 on the f,rle of the Senior Civil Judge, yadadri_Bhuvanagiri District, seeking for declaration of sale deeds, which were in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 9, as null and void and the same are pending for adjudication. 3. Mr.B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, rearned counser for respondent Nos.S to 9, vehemently contended that there are disputes with regard to the validation of Sadabainama and purchase made by the grandfather of the petitioner. w J 'l

4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel fcrr the respective parties and perused lhe record

5. It is seen from the record that both the petitioner as rvell as respondent Nos.5 to 9 are claiming rights in respect o[ land admeasuring Ac.100.17 gts., in Sy.No.82, situated at Hyclerpur Vi11age, Bhoodan Pochampally Manda-1, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri D:.strict. Thus the parties to this writ petition are inviting this Co rrt to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession of the said property. In view of the serious drspute with regard tc right, title, and possession of the subject property, writ petition is not the appropriate remedy, especially in the absence. rtf examination of the documents rr:lating t,: title and possession of the respective parties.

6. In Mohan Pand.eg as, Ushrr Rani Rajgariar the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6: rrxx.... It ltas repeatedlg been held bg this Court a:; also by uaious Higl-t Courts that a regular suit is tht: appropic.te remedg for settlement of disputes reLating tt propertA rights between piuate persons and that thtz remedg u.nder Afticle 226 of tlrc Constitution sht not btt auailable except uhere uiolation of some statutorll dutA otl the part of a statutory authoitA is alleged. And in such it '(1992) 4 scc 61 4 case, the Court u.tilt issue appropiate directton to the authoritg concemed.. If the real grleuance of the respond.ent is agoinst the initiation of criminaL proceed.ings, and the orders passed and. steps taken thereon, she must auait of the remedy under the general latu including the Ciminal Procedure Cod.e. The h llout the constitutional isdicti Court used ordecidin dls r u.thich remedies under the gneral lau..t ,eS ciuil or cnminal qre auailable lL IS NOI tntended to replace th.e ordtnaru remedies bu wau ofa sutt or ap lication auailab letoa ecial and extraordinant and should not be exercised casuall lu. " (emphasis supplied) ntss, on to be u orl risdictio The iu ant.

7. In Duarka prasdd Agarutal u. B.D. gg47qa1z, the Honble Supreme Court observed as follows: "The High Court uhile exercising a pou)er of judicial reuteu is concerned u-tith illegalitg, irrationalitg and. procedural impropietg of an order possed bg the State or a statutory autLrcritg. Remedg und.er Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be tnuoked for resolution of a priuate laut dispute as contra d.istinguished from a d.ispute inuoluing public lotu charocter. It is also u)ell_settled thot a writ remedy is not auailable for resolution of a propertA or a title dispute. "

8. Thus, it is well settlecl that this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possession of the parties in the ------ '1zooz1 o scc 230 5 r absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance.

9. In view ol the above discussion, this Court is not inctined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of th,e Constitution of India, for granting relief as sought by the petitioner and the Writ Petition filed b1, the petitioner is devoid of merits a:rd the same is liable to be drsmissed. However, since it is stated thal the petitioner and others have instituted civil suits vider O.S.Nos.B3 of 2O),9 and 9 of 2024 against the unofficial respondents, the parties are relesated to agitate their grievance in the said suit, in accordance rvith law. 1O. According1l., this Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending i n this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.L. LAKSHMT B BU R ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, District. Secretariat, Saifabad. Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, The State of Telangana' 2. ih; Dl;ilti cottectoi, Vidadri-Bhuvanagiri Diltrict, at Bhuvanagiri' e. iii; R;;;;te o,vidronarbtrrcer, Blruvanzgiri Division, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri D'strict +. ini iafrsirOar, Bhoodan Pochampally Vglgq!,.Vg{qOri-Bhuvana.girl 5. o;; cb*iJ Snr rrltvtMARAiu RAMcHANDRA RAo, Advocate.[oPUC] 6. il; ccsiJci FOR REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana' 7. Two CD CoPies IOUT] BN 0ots \_r1z'\ HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 ORDER WP.No.25356 of 2024 ,. --=:' i-rtte ' ./: t? 14: I ) :l 11 l-[: Z0?5 zI i( ,EspAl cYrr! i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION wtTHouT cosTs rI