IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 25972 of 2014 BETWEEN Ch.Susheela AND ... PETITIONER District Collector, Medak District, Office situated at Sanga Reddy Town, Medak District and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that she is the owner of the house bearing No.1-66 at Gandhi Nagar, Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet Town, Medak District. The said property is stated to be situated over 1000 sq.yds., which was allegedly purchased by the petitioner under two ordinary sale deeds, dated 18.09.2001. While the petitioner states that she is in the process of getting the said sale deeds validated, respondent No.4 State had created an agreement of sale relating to the part of the petitioner’s property admeasuring 528 sq.yds., and had obtained a decree in O.S.No.100 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, and thereafter obtained conveyance deed in its favour through the Tahsildar in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1601 dated 29.08.2005. Hence, the present writ petition seeking relief to set aside the said conveyance deed No.1968/12, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Siddipet, on 18.04.2012 by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.4 in pursuance of regularization proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1601, referred to above, the Tahsidlar is not a competent officer to execute the conveyance and, therefore, the said sale deed is by a person having no jurisdiction. He also submits that the said property relates to part of the property of the petitioner and without notice to her the said sale deed was executed. He, therefore, seeks the relief sought for in the writ petition and also states that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Tahsildar, respondent No.2, on 13.06.2012, but no action was taken for cancellation.
4. Looking at the relief sought for, if the petitioner was aggrieved, she must approach the competent civil court for the relief under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Various questions raised with regard to title to the property cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition unless oral and documentary evidence is lead and appreciated, which can be done only by competent civil court. So far as the petitioner’s claim with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Tahsildar in execution of the said conveyance is concerned, that is a matter which is for purchaser to take care and not for the petitioner to object.
5. I do not, therefore, see any ground to entertain the writ petition, as the dispute purely appears to be a private dispute where petitioner claims better title over that of respondent No.4, which cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 4, 2014 LMV