*THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH +WRIT APPEAL NO.306 OF 2008 % 03-07-2009 Between: # Smt. G.VANI, W/o. G.S. MUKRTHY, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.No.124, 2nd CROSS, VAYUPURI, SECUNDERABAD-94. …… APPELLANT And $ 1. THE GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL OFFICER, TANK BUND ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MALKAJGIRI, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MALKAJGIRI, MALKAJGIRI MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT. 4. THE AIR FORCE OFFICER’S COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (REGD.No.TB/671), VAYUPURI, SAINIKPURI POST, SECUNDERABAD-94, REP., BY ITS SECRETARY. …..RESPONDENTS !Counsel for the Appellant: MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR. R. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY. ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. M.A. MUJEEB (S.C). <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1.AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1081 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.306 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/02/2008 in WP NO : 2599 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. G. Vani W/o. G.S.Murthy R/o. H.No. 124, 2nd Cross Vayupuri, Secunderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner & Special Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Assistant Engineer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Malkajgiri Mandal, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Air Force Officers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (Regd.No. TB/671) Vayupuri, Sainikpuri Post, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : SRI B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.306 OF 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 08.02.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No.2599 of 2008, giving liberty to the petitioner therein to approach a competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief, if an adverse order is passed on the alleged representation, dated 07.02.2008, made by her to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein. 3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 are the authorities of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Corporation” for brevity) and respondent No.4 is The Air Force Officers’ Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad (‘the Society’ for brevity), in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant, respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.4 will be referred to as “the petitioner”, “Corporation” and “the Society”, respectively. 5. The factual back ground, in brief, appears to be that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of an extent of 1030 square yards, which is part of total extent of 6,000 square yards, on the strength of a registered sale deed, dated 28.10.2003; that the said sale transaction took place between the petitioner and the Society; that, in the said land, in an extent of 300 square yards, when the Corporation started interfering by way of digging pits to raise a compound wall, the petitioner made a representation, dated 07.02.2008, to the Corporation and that, in the meanwhile, the Society started interfering with the rights of the petitioner over the said land and as a result, the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit O.S.No.1339 of 2007 and obtained an interim injunction in I.A.No.1353 of 2007 and the same is subsisting. 6. While things stood thus, the Corporation started interfering by way of digging pits for raising a compound wall, the petitioner filed the present writ petition which was disposed of by the learned single Judge, observing that there are some serious questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, and consequently directed the Corporation to dispose of the representation, dated 07.02.2008; with a further observation that in the event of any adverse order passed, the writ petitioner was always at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court by way of filing a civil suit, seeking an appropriate relief and till the disposal of the representation, the Corporation was directed not to proceed with further work on the disputed site. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no useful purpose would be served if the representation was directed to be disposed of by the respondent No.1, inasmuch as, it is the Corporation who actually raised almost a counter claim regarding the disputed land and that already a civil suit had been filed against the Society, inasmuch as, the original dispute was between the petitioner and the Society. 9. The details of the litigation between the petitioner and the Society are not very relevant for resolving the present dispute. Therefore, the same are not being referred to. 10. What is obvious from the contentions of the parties to the writ petition is that the Society contends that the disputed land belongs to it only as per the lay out submitted in the year 1974, which was approved, and also as per the lay out submitted in the year 1983, which is allegedly not approved by the Corporation. 11. Even these questions also cannot be gone into by this Court. Much is to be said and explained -- what could be the effect if the second lay out allegedly submitted by the Society was not approved and also equally what would be the effect if the said lay out was approved at a later point of time by the Corporation. 12. Nextly, it is the contention of Sri Radha Krishna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, that, originally, the Society had earmarked a considerable extent of land for the purpose of constructing a club, but contravening the said proposal the said extent was alienated to different individuals. This is a clear violation of the lay out approved. Therefore, in order to protect the valuable land of the Corporation, they want to raise a compound wall in the disputed land. It is his further contention that there are violations on the part of the Society. 13. But, there is nothing on record to show that what kind of action that was taken in all these years and also it is equally indiscernible as to why the Corporation was particular at this point of time, that too, after a dispute had already been raised by the Society with regard to the present piece of land in dispute. 14. The learned single Judge was not justified in directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation, dated 07.02.2008, made by the petitioner, for the reason that no useful purpose would be served, inasmuch as, it is the very Corporation, including the respondent No.1, who raised the curtains for this litigation and controversy. 15. It is also the further contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that already a civil suit had been filed against the Society, which raised the controversy initially. It is further contended that at the instance of the Society only, the present claim is being made by the Corporation. 16. These questions are pure questions of fact, which are seriously in dispute, as rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge. 17. At this stage, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the representation, dated 07.02.2008, made by the petitioner had already been disposed of by the respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner has to file a civil suit challenging the said order of rejection of her representation. 18. A perusal of the representation, made by the petitioner, would only show that it is in the nature of a complaint made against the Corporation, but not a representation. As a matter of fact, the Corporation was put on notice that appropriate action would be initiated. But, the very nomenclature of the letter shows that it was a representation. There is no begging of any relief in the said representation. 19. Therefore, we are of the view that the representation that was referred to and was directed to be disposed of cannot be treated as a representation and, in fact, the same was in the fashion of a complaint. 20. Of course, the order of the learned single Judge does not really a matter, inasmuch as, it was specifically pointed out in the impugned order that there are serious questions of fact, which have to be decided by the competent Civil Court eventually. 21. It is also to be noticed that the learned single Judge also directed the Corporation not to proceed further till the representation, referred to above, was disposed of, which means - - the said representation is not a statutory remedy, even if it were to be treated as a representation made seeking some redressal. 22. Leaving this question apart, what is to be highlighted is – the Corporation is now bent upon to make an adverse claim to that of the claims made by the petitioner as well as the Society and stated that the claim was totally independent and through a different source altogether. Of course, there are certain overlappings. 23. Therefore, by way of disposing of the alleged representation, the Corporation virtually has been creating a right upon itself. In other words, the authorities of the Corporation have been acting as judges for their own litigation and cause, which is not permissible under law. 24. Therefore, notwithstanding this area of slight controversy, it is always desirable for the parties, who are claiming rights in different ways on the subject land, to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. 25. Obviously, already the petitioner as well as the Society has filed different suits against each other. 26. Therefore, by disposing of the alleged representation, dated 07.02.2008, the Corporation cannot defuse the effect of the suits pending already and the interlocutory orders obtained by the petitioner against the Society. Virtually, the action initiated by the Corporation, as alleged by the petitioner, amounts to decide the controversial issues in their favour and notwithstanding the pending suits. In other words, such conduct amounts to disposing of the controversy in a summary manner in its own favour. 27. This attitude had been pointed out as not proper, by the apex Court, in GOVT. OF A.P. vs. T.KRISHNA RAO[1]. 28. In the result, it is always desirable for all the litigating parties to approach the competent Civil Court notwithstanding any decision rendered by the Corporation, which was pointed out by the learned single Judge. Therefore, virtually there is nothing to be pointed out against the impugned order of the learned single Judge. However, we only dispose of the Writ Appeal by giving opportunity to the Corporation to approach the competent Civil Court either by way of filing an independent suit or in any other manner, approved by law, and contest the same. 29. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 30. It is needless to mention that the interim orders granted by the Civil Court i.e., Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1353 of 2007 in O.S.No.1339 of 2007 shall continue to be in operation until further orders. 31. It is equally needless to mention that it is for the Corporation if it prefers to come on record to approach Civil Court by way of filing appropriate applications. _____________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 03RD JULY 2009 KTL/KRK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.306 OF 2008 (Oral Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) 03RD JULY 2009 [1] AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1081