AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not taking legal action against the unofficial respondents who committed
breach of trust, cheating and other criminal acts and also encroaching the Government land etc., as illegal and also to declare the action of
respondent No.4 in entertaining the registrations of the documents being executed by the unofficial respondents in respect of P.R. Shankaraiah
Apartment (Manikanta Builders) without considering the objection petition of the petitioner dated 28.05.2020 as illegal.
Heard Mr. T. Koteshwara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and also learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.
It is contended by the petitioner herein that he is the resident of Mancherial town. He along with his family members have given 364 square
yards of their land for development purpose to M/s. Manikanta Builders i.e., respondent Nos.8 and 9 herein. A registered development agreement
bearing document No.3416 of 2008 was also executed. They have also executed a supplementary agreement. However, his builders encroached
the adjacent Government land, raised structures in the said land. Therefore, the petitioner herein has made objection.
i) After completion of construction, owners of the respective flats have organized and formed into an association was formed under the name and
style ‘P.R. Shankeraiah Apartment Welfare Society’, respondent No.5 herein, and respondent Nos.6 and 7 being its President and
Secretary in collusion with the Builders, continued the said illegal activities and registered the flats. They have not only cheated the public, but also
the Government and the petitioner herein. They have demolished the flat of the petitioner herein and, thus, they have committed criminal trespass
and breach of trust.
ii) The petitioner has further contended that he has lodged a complaint with respondent No.2 on 04.01.2021 who in turn referred the same to
respondent No.3 for inquiry and necessary action. Even then, according to the petitioner, respondent No.3 did not act upon it.
iii) It is also contended that the petitioner herein has also made a complaint to respondent No.4 on 28.05.2020, but there was no action from their
side. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.
In view of the above said submissions, this Court directed respondent No.3 to file counter. Accordingly, respondent No.3 has filed counter
stating that the petitioner herein has submitted complaint on 04.01.2021 to respondent No.2, who in turn endorsed the same to respondent No.3
for inquiry and necessary action. Pursuant to the said endorsement, respondent no.3 deputed staff to the house of the petitioner at the address
given by him to submit relevant documents for the purpose of inquiry and necessary action. But, the petitioner herein informed that he was not well
and after recovery, he would approach respondent No.3 along with relevant documents. Accordingly, the petitioner approached respondent no.3
along with relevant documents on 12.04.2021.
i) It is further contended in the counter that during the course of inquiry, it revealed that as per the Development Agreement and General Power of
Attorney, respondent Nos.5 to 9 did not register the documents in favour of the petitioner. As the matter relates to civil in nature, respondent No.3
closed the said complaint suggesting the petitioner to approach the competent Court for redressal of his grievance. The same was intimated to the
petitioner by respondent No.3 through notice dated 12.04.2021 sent through registered post. According to respondent No.3, he is not competent
authority to direct respondent Nos.5 to 9 to register the documents in favour of petitioner or to hand over 18 square yards of land to him. The
delay occurred in concluding the inquiry was due to non-submission of relevant documents by the petitioner herein.
A perusal of the complaint dated 04.01.2021 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2 and also the complaint dated 28.05.2021
submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.4 would reveal that the petitioner herein and his family members being owners of 364 square yards of
land gave it for development and, accordingly, the builders have constructed the flats. As per the said development agreement, three flats fell to the
share of petitioner. But, the office bearers of respondent No.5 association i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7 and the developers, respondent Nos.8 and
9 are insisting the petitioner to hand over 18 square yards of land on the ground that the development agreement was for 364 square yards in
addition to 18 square yards of land, otherwise, they would not allow him to enter into his flat No.302. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 assured the
petitioner that they would get flat No.510 registered in his name through the builders in lieu of 18 square yards of land, but so far they did not get
the said flat No.510 registered in the name of petitioner herein. Earlier when they tried to demolish the retaining wall, he gave complaint to the
police. Now, they broke open the lock of Flat No.510 and caused damage to the said flat. Thus, the petitioner herein has requested respondent
No.2 either to direct respondent Nos.5 to 9 to execute a register sale deed in his favour in respect of Flat No.510 or to get back the said 18
square yards of land to him. A copy of the development agreement would also reveal the said facts.
A perusal of the complaint dated 04.01.2021 would further reveal that there is an endorsement made by respondent No.2 referring it to
respondent No.3 for inquiry and action.
As stated above, it is specifically contended by respondent No.3 that he has deputed his staff to the petitioner with a request to submit relevant
documents as part of enquiry, but the petitioner did not furnish the documents. However, he has submitted the documents on 12.04.2021. Now,
the grievance of the petitioner herein is that respondent No.3 has to direct the unofficial respondents either to register a document in respect of Flat
No.510 or to hand over 18 square yard of land to him. Though respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit contending the aforesaid facts, the
petitioner herein did not file any reply rebutting the said allegations made by respondent No.3.
As rightly contended by respondent No.3 in its counter that though the petitioner herein requested him to direct the unofficial respondents either
to register a document in his favour in respect of Flat No.510 or to hand over 18 square yard of land to him, he is not the competent authority to
give such direction and, therefore, it closed the complaint treating it as civil in nature and that the same was intimated to the petitioner vide notice
dated 12.04.2021 sent through registered post. In view of the same, the contents of the complaint do not constitute a commission of cognizable
offence. Necessary remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has approached
this Court seeking the aforesaid relief, which is impermissible. Thus, there is no error in closing the complaint by respondent No.3 treating it as civil
in nature. The petitioner failed to establish any ground to grant any relief, much less the aforesaid relief. The writ petition is devoid of merits and,
therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.