High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the official respondents not to entertain any transactions such as sale, lease, mortgage or exchange etc., in respect of lands in land admeasuringj Ac. 1-039ts., in Sy.No. 1 I EEt 1 and Ac.3- 39gts in Sy.No.2i4 situated at Aiilapoor Village, Velandanda Mandal pending outcome of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. B RACHNA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER I a , HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.46457 of 2O22 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...1o lssue an appropiate LUit, order or direction; more particularlg one i.n tlrc nature of uit of Mando.mus: a) bg declaing the action of the Respondents in issuing new patta pass book to respondent No.s and mutating respondent No.S name in Dherqni Portal for land admeasuing Ac.1.03 gts., tn Stt.No.l/ EE/ 2 and Ac.3.39 gts., in SA.NI.2/ 5 situated at Ajilapoor Villaqe, Velandandq Manda| behind the petitioner's bock in spite of there being parlition deed dated 19.07.1990 and also without due consideration of pahanies u)hich uere altered illegallg by the offtcial respondents as illegal, arbitrary and violatiue of Articles 14, 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of Indio; ond b) Consequentlg, direct the olficial respondents to concel the patta passbook issued in fauour of respondent No,S and restore the reuenue records to the correct enties for the subject propertll or pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land adrneasuring Ac.1.03 gts., in Sy.No.1/EE/2 and Acs.3.39 gts., in Sy.No.2/S situated at Ajilapoor Village, Velandanda Mandal. It is stated that the subject lands are ancestral property, which originally stands in the name of his father, namely, late Sri Kondal Reddy, S/o Seeta Reddy along with other i T I I I 2 lands in different survey numbers. It is further stated that the petitioner and respondent No.S are own brothers and they have partitioned their ancestral properties under partition deed dated

19.07.1990 and out of the total extent, the petitioner got Ac. 10.03 gts., towards his share and since then, he has been in the possession of the same. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know that the name of respondent No.5 was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the part of the total extent i.e., the subject lands and 6iattadar passbooks were also issued by the Tahsildhar Velanda Mandal in favour of respondent No.5.

3. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalwakurthy Division, Nagarkurnool District, and the same was dismissed with an advice to approach the competent civil Court. Being aggrieved with the said order, he hled revision before the Speciai Tribunal-cum- District Coilcctor, Nagarkurnool, and the sarne was also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.S has submitted that the petitioner has already filed a suit vide O.S.No.36Z of 2O21 on the {ile of Principal .lunior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy, against the respondent No.5 herein and others seeking permanent iniunction I ,/t /./ _l ) and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner who could not obtain any favourable orders in the said suit, has filed the writ petition by suppressing the material facts.

5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the subject property having acquired the same under partition deed 19.O7.1990 and that Respondents No.5 has fraudulently obtained pattadar passbooks by producing fake documents. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent No.S that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.367 of 2O2l on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy, seeking permanent injunction and the same r,vas dismissed lor non- prosecution. It is further case of respondent No.S that the petitioner, having failed to obtain orders in the civil suit, has filed the present writ petition by suppressing material facts. The parties to this writ petition are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession of the subject property. In view of the serious dispute with regard to right, title, and possession of the subject property, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve thre inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the I I, 4 absence of examination of the documents relating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightful owner of the land in question; who is in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstances they claim to be in possesSion; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-A-vis the true owner, etc., are material questions that arose for consicieration 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 adduced by the parties, and not in a writ petition filed undcr Article 226 of the Constitution 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 properry rights.

7. ln Mohqn Pandeg os. Usha Rani Rajgariar the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6: xxxx. . . It lras repeatedly been heLd bg this Court as also bg uaious High Cotnts that a regular suit is the appropriate rernedg for settlement of dispute,; relatitq to propertA ights between piuate persotLs ond thot the remeclq urtder Afticte 226 of the Constitution shall not be auailctble except where rnolation of sone statutory dutg on the part of a statutory authoitg is atleged. And in such a case, the Court uitl issue appropriale directiorl to the authoitA concerned. lf the real grieuance of the respotidettt is agatnst the initicrtion of ciminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps token thereon, she must auail of the remedg under the qerterat lau including tLe Ciminal Procedure Code. Tl-Le High Coutl cantlot o-Llo the constttuti onal iuisdictio rt to be used fc. decidinq '(1992) 4 scc 6l ) or whtch remedies or cnnina are auailable. It is not intended to replace the o nl remedies bu uau of a suit or application auailable to a litiott nt. The iuisdiction is special and extraordinaru and should not be exercised casuallu or liqhtLu.' (emp hasts supplied) ral La \

8. \n Duarka Prasad. Agarual as. B.D. Agarwalz, the Hon,ble Supreme Courl observed as follows: "The High Court while exercising a pou,er of judicial reuiew is concerned tttth itlegalitg, irrationalitg and procedural impropietg of an order passed bg the State or a stotutory authoitg. Remedg under Article 226 oJ tlte Constitutiotl- of India cannot be inuoked for resolution of a piuote lou dispute as contra dtstinguished from a dispute inuoluing publtc law character. It is also uell-settled thot o urit remedy is not auailable for resolution of a property or a title dispute."

9. It is well settled law 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 absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of trte Constitution of India, for granting relief as sought by the petitioner and the Writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Since the petitioner and respondent No.s are own brothers and they have divided the ancestral property under partition deed '1zoos1 o scc 230 i I I I 6 L9.O7.1990, this Court is of the opinion that the parties are at libert5r to institute comprehensive civil suit before the Competent Civil Court seeking partition and separate possession, and the parties are relegated to agitate their grievance in the said suit, in accordance with law.

12. Accordingl-v, this Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER L To, 1 2 a 4 5

7. KKS BS gana Seiretariat, BRKR The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, T Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana-500063. The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana' The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ajilapoor Village, Veldanda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana. The Tahsildar, VeldandalVlandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana' One CC to Smt B RACHNAAdvocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana' Two CD Coptes 8p- HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.46457 ot 2022 cs. 1H€ S I,4 /6: ^(t {.r. J 0 APB 2025 --,! ^/ * fJt:.sPAT(:tl Ir{) DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f tl. 2r5