ORDER TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C v. BHASKARREDDY WRIT PETITION No

The Settlement Officer, Evacuee Properties, Hyderabad P. Javaorakash Naravana S/o. Late Sri P- Devaiah, aged about 54 years' Occ: []Jsiness. Fyo. H.t to.z-3-6 411olN52, Amberpet, Hyderabad. P. Raiesh Naravana S/o. Sri P. Badri Narayana, aged about 40 years, Occ: Busin'ess, R/o. H.No.3-e-e38, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. P. Saniav Naravana S/o. Sri P. Badri Narayana, aged about 40 years, Occ: Businesd, Ryo. [t.tlo. g-g-438, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. Smt. Anurekha Rani Wo. Sri C.R.N. Prasad, aged about 42 years, Occ: *ousewife, R/o. H.No. 1 0-1 9i1, Vsanthpuri, Malkaigiri Secunderabad. Smt. P. Shyamala W/o. Sri P. Jagolistr Narayana, aged about ss-years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H.No.2-3-6l1 04,/52, Ravinivbs, Jaiswa Garden, Amberpet, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos.s to I are impleaded as perC.O.dated 10.02.2025 in lA No.'1 of 2024) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of writ of mandamus to declare the in-action of ihe Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 in not acting upon the Complaint dt. 2810412022 tiled by the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 3004 of lndian Constitution. Consequently, to direct the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 to conduct an enquiry of Sale Certificate dt. 02-09-1960 expeditiously and to dispose off my Complaint dl. 28-04-2022. IA NO:1OF 2022 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 direct the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 to conduct an enquiry of Sale Certificate dt. 02/09/1960 expeditiously and to dispose off my Comptaint dt. 2BlO4t2O22 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSSATN Counsel for the Respondent No.'t to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, ASST. cp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the R,espondent No.6 to 10: SRI V. VENKATA MA,YUR The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKARREDDY WRIT PETITION No.38645 OF 2022 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "...to issue a writ in nature of writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondent No.2 3 & 4 in not acting upon the Complaint dt 28-04-2022 filed by the Peritioner as illegal, arbifary, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 300A. of Indian Constitution. Consequently, to direct the Respondent No.2 3 and 4 to conduct an enquiry of Sale Certific ate dt. 02- 09-1960 expeditiousiy and to dispose offmy Complaint dt.28- 04-2022 and to pass..."

2. It is stated that father of the petitioner, late Mr. Mahmood Ahmed S/o. Shaik Adam was the absolute owner of the land admeasuring 6182 square yards in Survey No.110 adjacent to Race Course, Malakpet, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.1908 of 1962 dated

06.10.1962. The father of the petitioner has also filed declaration under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short 'ULC Act') vide C.C.No.B1,{JLC|8228|76 datd

08.11.1977, in which it was held that he was entitled to hold 1200 square yards out of6182 square yards and accordingly, he retained 1200 square yards out of 6182 square yards of Survey No.l10 of Malakpet, Hyderabad i.e., subject property. Petitioner acquired the 2- subject property by oral gift (HIBA) on 25.08.1989 from his father and his far.her also executed a Memorandum of Past Orai Gift dated

28.08.1989 acknowledging the oral gift (FIIBA) dated 25.08.1989.

3. It is further stated that unoffrcial respondents by virtue of hnal award passed in O.S.No.416 of 2009 on the file of leamed II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short 'Trial Court') vide L.A*C. No.510 of 2010 dated 04.09.2010 bv the t.ok Adalat, Cir,y Civil Court, [rgal Services Authority, Hyderabad, have tried to encroach into the subject properry. On obtaining the certified copies of the alleged award passed in L.A.C. No.5 10 of 2010 in O.S.No.416 of 2009, the petitioner came to know that unofficial respondents in collusion have filed a suit for partition in O.S. No-416 of 2009 arraying themselves as plaintiffs and defendants. The said suit was dccreed on 04.09.2010 before tok Adalat in L.A.C. No.510 of 2010 on the terms of compromise agreed upon byboth the parties.

4. It is further stated that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.754 of 2019 before the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of subject property, to grant perpetual injunction restraining the respondents therein fiom interfering with the peaceful 3 possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property and to declare the final award passed in O.S.No.4l6 of 2009 on the file of Trial Courtvide L.A.C. No.510 of 2010 dated 04.09.2010 as nult and void. After filing of the said suit, the petitioner after examining the documents in O.S. No.4l6 of ?n09, came to know about the fraudulent sale certificate dated 02.09.1960 produced by the respondent Nos.6 to 10, which was the basis for referring the said suit to Lok Adalat for passing an award.

5. It is stated that disputing the said sale certificate, the petitioner filed representation/complaint dated 28.04.2022 before respondent Nos.2 to 4 to conduct enquiry on the alleged sale certiircate dated

02.09.1960. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said complaint, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not conducting any enquiry to decide the genuineness of the said sale certificate dated 02.09. 1960.

6. Mr. Venkata Mayur, leamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 10, vehemently contended that the subject property was purchased by the father of respondent Nos.6 to 10 and they have instituted a suit for partition in O.S. No.4l6 of 2009 before the Trial Court of the said property and the same was referred to Lok Adalat 4 and an award was passed on the tenns of compromise agreed upon by them. Petitioner questioning the validity, genuineness or otherwise of the sale certificate issued in 1960, instead of taking steps to file appropriate application in the suit instituted by him in O.S. No.754 of 2019' filed this writ petition on the ground of in action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in disposing of the complaint/representation submitted by him. Hence, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and liabre to be dismissed. 7 . This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr. Muharnmad Veqar Hussain, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Venkata Mayur, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.6 to l0 and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Govemment pleader for Revenue.

8. Petitioner claims that originally his father had purchased the subject property under registered sate deed bearing document No.l908 of 1962 and filed declaration under uLC Act and an extent of 1200 square yards have been retained to the father the petitioner and petitioner acquired the subject property by oral gift (HIBA). The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.6 to 10, without having valid title and interest over the subject property, have instituted a suit forpartition in o.S. No.4l6 of 2009 on the basis of 5 alleged sale certificate, dated 02.09.1960 and award, dated

04.09.2010 passed in L.A.C. No.5l0 of 2010 by the t,ok Adalat, City Civil Court, trgal Serrrices Authority, Hyderabad, on the terms of compromise agreed upon them. Petitioner also instituted a suit in O.S. No.754 of 2019 seeking for declaration, injunction and cancellation of t,ok Adalat award passed in O.S. No.4l6 of 2009. Further, the petitioner has also approached respondent Nos-2 to 4 and submitted complaint/representation dated 28.04.2022 to enquire into the vatidity or otherwise of the genuineness of the alleged sale certificate. Whereas, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 10 vehemently contended that the petitioner has already instituted a suit seeking cancellation of award passed in O.S. No.4l6 of 2009 and if the petitioner needs to enquire into the genuineness of the sale certificate, he ought to have filed appropriate application in the pending suit, rather than approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition.

9. In view of the above submissions, as serious disputes are involved with regard to the nature and classification of the land, and rights and title over the subject property and the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the 6 complaiot/representatioo of the petitioner, datod 2g.04.2022, for conducting enquiry on the validity, genuineness or otherwise of alleged sale certificate issued on 02.09.196(., primafacie thisCourt is of the opinion that since the petitioner has already instituted a suit in O.S. No.754 of 2019 seeking cancellation of lok adalat award and other reliefs and he has an effective altemative remedy of filing appropriate application seeking calling for records i.e., alleged sale certificate executed in favour of father of respondent Nos.6 to 10, in the pending suit for determining the validity, genuineness or otherwise of the sale certificate.

10. Apart fiom that this Court under summary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to examine the Photostat copies enclosed by the parties in support of their claims and decide the validity or otherwise of the said documents in the writ jurisdiction, which would literally amount to deciding title dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I I . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, relegating the petitioner to file appropriate apprication in the pending suit instituted by him i.e., O.S. No.754 of 2019 on the file of leamed tX Additional 7 Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. One CC to SRI MUHAMMAD VEOAR HUSSAIN 2. ifi ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for a b-n"e'CC to SRI V. VENKATA MAYUR, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies fouT"t \ te [oPUC] tate of Telangana. BN GJP V HIGH COUP.T DATED: 1 0 lo2l2il25 ORDER WP.No.38645 of 2022 t 't BE E, l.q ir- o ,j ., Ag lufl M :. D,lTCuio DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C:OSTS fl 1 2V lr{