THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3902 of 2010 April 28, 2010 Between: B.Ram Bhupal Reddy … Petitioner And Government of A.P. & others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3902 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession of the land in survey No.124/40 situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petition allegations are as follows. Kummari Chandraiah was the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.4.04 guntas in survey No.124/40. He sold the land to B.Ramesh Pal Yadav under registered sale deed dated 28.01.1985. The petitioner allegedly purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1998. The petitioner obtained pattedar passbook and title deed. He also obtained electricity connection and statedly cultivating the land. On 10.02.2010 when he went to the well, observed workers digging pits in the land. On enquiry, he was revealed that the pits were being dug for laying pipelines. The petitioner then gave a complaint to PS Ibrahimpatnam on 11.02.2010. They refused to take complaint. The petitioner also alleges that the fifth respondent initially commenced the work of laying pipelines in the land belonging to his neighbour one Ramesh Gupta, who when obtained orders from High Court, they came to petitioner’s land. This Court ordered notice before admission on 19.02.2010 and in W.P.M.P.No.1208/2010 directed to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks. When the matter came up on 18.03.2010 for further enquiry, the fifth respondent namely Hyderabad Metro Water Works and Sewerage Board (‘the Board’ for brevity) filed counter affidavit and their counsel insisted to hear the W.P.M.P. and vacate the status quo order. Therefore, this Court heard W.P.M.P. and having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit of the Board referred to hereinafter; on 18.03.2010 this Court passed the following order. “The petitioner’s case that he is owner of subject land admeasuring Acs.4.04 guntas in survey No.124/40 and that he has been in possession is categorically denied by fifth respondent. According to them, the Government land was transferred to A.P. Housing Board and the Housing Board in turn transferred the land in favour of M/s.Deccan Infrastructures & Holdings Limited, who in turn handed over Acs.2.00 to fifth respondent for construction of water sump- cum-pump house. They also state that the foundation work is already completed. Therefore, any continuance of status quo order would subvert public interest. If ultimately petitioner succeeds, the relief can be granted in terms of money. The status quo order is vacated.” When the matter was again listed on 21.04.2010, counsel for the petitioner sought time for filing reply affidavit. Today when the case is called, the counsel for the petitioner again sought time for filing reply affidavit. This is opposed by the Standing Counsel for the Board. Therefore, the arguments are heard. In the counter affidavit filed by Executive Director, the case of the Board is as follows. The Government allotted Acs.58.22 guntas in survey No.124 of Mangalpally Village to Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) (not a party to this writ petition) vide G.O.Ms.No.1559 Revenue (ASN.V) Department dated 19.12.2007 on payment of market value of Rs.30 lakhs per acre. APHB in turn transferred the said land in favour of M/s.Deccan Infrastructures & Land Holdings Limited (DILL) under registered sale deed dated 16.01.2008. It is only the DILL in possession and enjoyment of the property. The land claimed by the petitioner is also part of land allotted by the Government to APHB, which was subsequently transferred to DILL. It was also handed over to subsequent purchaser. DILL handed over an extent of Acs.2.00 out of Acs.4.04 guntas in survey No.124/40 to the Board on 12.10.2009 for the purpose of construction of sump-cum-pump house to supply water to Fab City and Hardware Park. The Board has taken possession of the land. The work of digging was completed and concrete was laid for sump. Steel formation was also completed. Petitioner did not raise any objection at that time and he directly filed the writ petition on 19.02.2010 and obtained interim orders. Along with counter affidavit, the Board has also annexed the copies of government order, sale deed executed in favour of the DILL, the location map and panchanama under which possession was handed over. The counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to pahanies from the year 1965-1966 to 2005-2006 and sale deed dated 22.09.1998 in favour of the petitioner and contends that when the petitioner has a valid title, acquiring the land of the petitioner even for public use without following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is unconstitutional. She also relies on other documents like APSEB Passbook issued to agriculturists for supply of free electricity in support of her contention that petitioner is in possession of the land. Per contra the Standing Counsel for the Board submits that APHB was in possession of the land from 2007, who subsequently sold the same to DILL, who in turn allotted the land to the Board. He contends that in the absence of APHB and DILL, the question of title cannot be gone into. He further submits that when there is a doubt about the title of the petitioner, understanding documents produced by the petitioner, this Court cannot decide the question of title. It is axiomatic that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, disputed question of title cannot be gone into. A declaration of title by the Court requires adducing and appreciation of evidence. The writ jurisdiction is summary and is mainly decided on the basis of the documents. When there is a serious dispute with regard to title to the land admeasuring Acs.4.04 guntas in survey No.124/40, the Writ petition is not a proper remedy. Ultimately, if the petitioner succeeds in declaration suit, the reliefs can be properly worked out. (see Parvatibai Subhanrao Nalawade v Anwarali Hasanali Makani[1], State of Rajasthan v Bhawani Singh[2], Mohan Pandey v Usha Rani Rajgaria[3] a n d Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v B.D.Agarwal[4]). In view of the settled legal position, the writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner can avail remedy by filing suit for title or seeking compensation from the Government, APHB or DILL but not the fifth respondent. The writ petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 28, 2010 SUR [1] (1992) 1 SCC 414 : AIR 1992 SC 1780 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1018 [3] (1992) 4 SCC 61 : AIR 1993 SC 1225 [4] (2003) 6 SCC 230 : AIR 2003 SC 2686