AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. Srinivas Srikanth, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5; and Mr. R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.8.
This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.15550 of 2022 filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners.
The related writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
“In the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 7 laying 28’ ft wide road by encroaching to an extent of 8’ ft to 10’ ft into the petitioners patta land of 2000 sq. yards in Plot No.4 in Sy.No.90/2 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at the instance of 8th respondent as arbitrary, malafide, opposed to law, violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 7 to remove the road to the extent of encroachment about 8’ ft to 10’ ft made into the petitioners patta land in Plot No.4 in Sy.No.90/2 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District absolutely belonging to the petitioners in the interests of justice and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose.”
Case of the appellants as projected in the writ petition was summed up by the learned Single Judge in the following manner:
“2. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners along with three others purchased the property in an auction conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and a common sale certificate was issued on 24.05.2004 and since then, they are in peaceful possession of the property. It is stated that in respect of the petitioners’ plot of 2000 square yards, it is clearly mentioned that there is passage on Southern side and 120 feet road on eastern side. It is stated that the 8th respondent is the co-brother of petitioner No.1 and both of them have given the property when their relationship was cordial for development and in view of the strained relation, the 8th respondent started harassing the petitioners by filing false cases one after the other as he could not get permission for high-rise construction as it is only a passage of 15’ on Southern side to reach his plot. It is stated that the 8th respondent in collusion with the official respondents got issued a notice on 07.01.2022 as if the petitioners have encroached the 30’ wide road and directed the petitioners to remove the blue tin sheets which were erected enclosing their plot within three days for which the petitioners gave reply dated 10.01.2022, but the 6th respondent has not passed any order and the 8th respondent in order to justify his illegal claim of 30’ road on Southern side, got his plot regularized through LRS proceedings showing 30’ road on Southern side. It is stated that Respondents 6 and 7 are aware of the ground position and also there is only 15’ wide road, however, basing on the LRS Application, they laid 28’ wide road with footpath for the sake of the 8th respondent. Hence, the petitioners have come up before this Court.”
Stand taken by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) was that Land Regularisation Scheme (LRS) proceedings were initiated in the year 2017 and on the basis of such proceedings and following the laid down norms, GHMC completed laying of road in the month of February, 2022. That apart, it was contended that unofficial respondents filed O.S.No.2416 of 2019 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking a declaration that the existing 30 feet wide road is a public road and sought for perpetual injunction.
According to the appellants they had filed W.P.No.26935 of 2019 questioning the LRS proceedings. The said writ petition is pending.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding as follows:
“6. Admitted facts in this case are that LRS proceedings were issued on 26.09.2017 and the official respondents basing on the said proceedings after complying with the formalities have laid the road in the month of February. A suit which is filed in respect of the very same 30’ road is pending before the civil court. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the notice dated 07.01.2022 issued by the respondent Corporation.
The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievance in the suit pending before the civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Thus, we find that learned Single Judge has taken the view that LRS proceedings were initiated on 26.09.2017 and on the basis of such proceedings, the road was laid in February, 2022. That apart, a civil suit is pending seeking a declaration that the road in question is a public road and seeking perpetual injunction. Therefore, Court declined to interfere with the notice. However, liberty was granted to the parties to agitate their grievance in the suit pending before the civil Court.
We find that civil suit has been instituted by Shri Lakshmi Ganapathy Industries Private Limited, as the plaintiff, represented by its Managing Director i.e., respondent No.8. Appellant No.1 is the defendant. Prayer made in the suit is as follows:
“The plaintiff, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in its favour and against the defendant.
a) declaring the existing 30’ wide road as a public road;
b) granting a perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents, followers, etc. and anyone claiming through or under him, from occupying the suit road;
c) award costs of this suit; and
d) grant such other relief as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interests of justice.”
Therefore, the principal prayer made in the suit is for declaring the existing 30 feet wide road as a public road.
Parallelly, upon receipt of complaint from respondent No.8 regarding encroachment by the appellants over the land in question, GHMC officials inspected the site and noticed that appellants, being owners of plot No.4 of Survey No.90/2 situated at Gachibowli, has encroached the 30 feet wide road partly by way of tin sheets and cuddy stones. Accordingly by notice dated 07.01.2022 appellants were directed to remove the tin sheets and cuddy stones erected on the road.
Reverting back to the prayers made by the appellants in the writ petition, we find that appellants had sought for a declaration that the action of the GHMC and its officials in laying the road at the instance of respondent No.8 is illegal and therefore, the same should be quashed. The prayer so made and any possible relief based thereon would require adducing of evidence, since complicated questions of fact and law are involved. Therefore, learned Single Judge rightly held that there is no good reason to interfere with the impugned notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while granting liberty to the parties to agitate their grievance in the pending civil suit in which appellant No.1 is already the defendant.
We see no reason to disturb such finding of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the writ appeal.
Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.