An indirect relief cannot be chosen when a direct relief is available: High Court of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD W.P.No.163821 Manchala Paramesh State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Hyderabad and Others. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.7.2021 THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters Journals Yes 3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment No T.AMARNATH GOUD J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMRNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION No.16382 OF 2021 Manchala Paramesh State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Hyderabad and Others. Counsel for Petitioner Sri Kiran Palakurthi Counsel for the respondents Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development HEAD NOTE: Cases referred THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION No.16382 OF 2021 This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed assailing the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in taking action against respondent Nos.4 to 7 who are trying to encroach the plots of the petitioner bearing Nos.51 A and 51 B Sy.No.149 2 1 2 A admeasuring 222 sq. yards situated at Cheeryal village and gram panchayat Keesara Mandal Medchal Malkajgiri District as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner in brief was that the petitioner purchased an extent of 222 sq. yards from Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Pannala Buchi Reddy vide document No.4168 2020 dated 14.5.2020. In the month of April 2021 when he inspected his plot he came to know that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are trying to make constructions near his plot and trying to occupy it. Thereupon the petitioner approached the third respondent and submitted a written complaint dated 23.4.2021 and requested to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction being made by the unofficial respondents. He also made representations before the second respondent in that regard but no action has been taken. In spite of repeated requests the third respondent neither conducted any spot inspection nor gave any response. The construction activity in the said plots is going on rapidly and if the same is not stopped the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury and it would even difficult for the third respondent to demolish the entire structure. Hence the present Writ Petition. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Pancahyat Raj and Rural The learned Government Pleader argued that the gram panchayat has more responsible works to attend rather than settling civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and in many matters offices of the gram panchayats are being burdened with such complaints to resolve their private issues without approaching civil Admittedly this is a private litigation between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondents are raising structures on the land upon which the petitioner is having right and interest. Sections 113 and 114 of the Panchayat Raj Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. The petitioner has not placed on record and has not pointed out under what provision of the statute he filed a complaint before the respondent authorities and their obligation to consider the representations. Since there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to deal with the representation of the petitioner the legal right of the petitioner for the inaction of the respondents is not infringed. That basing upon the complaint of the petitioner if the official respondents act against the unofficial respondents it amounts to invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court having jurisdiction. It is not for the official respondents or even to this Court to decide right title and interest of the parties over the property. It is the trial court which would appreciate the evidence and decide the matter. Once the issue of right upon the property is decided the consequential relief of construction of houses upon the property of the petitioner can also be decided. Pending suit before the trial Court the petitioner can always seek an interim relief of injunction if so advised. Bypassing trial Court it is not open to the petitioner to involve the gram panchayat and approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be a shortcut method in justice delivery system. Avoiding a direct relief from civil court the petitioner cannot choose relief in an indirect way under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot agitate the cause of action for which the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the competent civil court before a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or even before the gram panchayat because the rights of the petitioner or the unofficial respondents upon the subject property can be decided by the civil court only. Therefore the efficacious remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent civil court if he feels that his property rights are infringed but he cannot involve the gram panchayat official respondents as an arm twisting to get a relief against the unofficial respondents by way of filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For all the above reasons the Writ Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Writ Petition shall T. AMARNATH GOUD J. stand closed. Date: 22.7.2021 L.R. copy be marked B o Kvsn 

Summary: Parties cannot resort to methods which are elaborate and involve higher authorities when readily available reliefs are directly available. There cannot be a shortcut method in the justice delivery system and everyone must go through the appropriate channels and must use the reliefs available. This was decreed by Hon’ble Justice Sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud in the case of Manchala Paramesh Vs. State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department and Ors. [W.P.No.16382 of 2021] on the 22nd of July, 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are, the petitioner purchased an extent of 222 sq. yards from Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Pannala Buchi Reddy vide document No.4168/2020 dated 14.5.2020. In the month of April 2021, when he inspected his plot, he came to know that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are trying to make constructions near his plot and trying to occupy it. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the third respondent and submitted a written complaint dated 23.4.2021 and requested to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction being made by the unofficial respondents. He also made representations before the second respondent in that regard, but no action has been taken. In spite of repeated requests, the third respondent neither conducted any spot inspection nor gave any response. The construction activity in the said plots is going on rapidly and if the same is not stopped, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury and it would even difficult for the third respondent to demolish the entire structure. Hence the present Writ Petition under article 226 is filed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there was inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in taking action against respondent Nos.4 to 7 who are trying to encroach the plots of the petitioner bearing Nos.51/A and 51/B in Sy.No.149/2/1/2/A admeasuring 222 sq. yards and this was illegal and arbitrary. The counsel for the respondent submitted that, the gram panchayat has more responsible works to attend rather than settling civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and in many matters offices of the gram panchayats are being burdened with such complaints to resolve their private issues, without approaching civil Court. The learned judge heard the submissions of both the parties and opined that the present case was a matter of private litigation. The court also observed that the petitioner has not placed on record and has not pointed out under what provision of the statute he filed a complaint before the respondent authorities and their obligation to consider the representations. Since there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to deal with the representation of the petitioner, the legal right of the petitioner for the inaction of the respondents is not infringed.