HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 906 of 2014 Date: 03.06.2014 Between:
Lingamaneni Veerabhadra Rao … Appellant And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 906 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge, after noting serious factual disputes raised, dismissed the writ petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. He says that there is no dispute with regard to the title of his client. He stated that his client is in physical possession of the property in question, as supported by the order of injunction passed by the civil Court restraining the defendants therein, including respondent No.5 herein, from interfering with the possession of the appellant. Now it is stated that the official respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the appellant without following due process of law. This was the grievance in the writ petition. The Trial Judge however recorded that assertion of physical possession of the writ petitioner/appellant was denied and disputed.
Learned counsel for the respondents reiterates that the appellant is not in physical possession of the property in question.
We do not find any document showing that the appellant has been or is still in physical possession. Moreover, it appears that there are disputes raised by the State with regard to the title of the appellant. We therefore reject the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Trial Judge has rightly held that the appellant is not in physical possession as no proof thereof is produced. The aforesaid disputed question of physical possession of the land as well as that of title, as raised by the appellant, cannot be effectively adjudicated by the writ Court. Mere assertion in the affidavit with regard to the possession of the appellant without any supporting document is not good enough particularly when it has been denied and disputed and the same has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge. The writ Court can decide when there is question of law or factual issue which can be decided on the basis of the unimpeachable documents placed before it. We therefore feel that the order of the learned Trial Judge does not call for any interference. It is open to the appellant to approach the appropriate civil Court. Since the State is a party, service of Section 80 notice under the Code of Civil Procedure is required. However, learned counsel for the State waives service of such notice and no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be served.
For the ends of justice, we feel that the order of status quo as of today with regard to the possession of the property shall continue for a period of two months from date. On expiry of two months, this interim order will stand vacated. All questions are kept open.
The writ appeal is dismissed subject to the above observation.
No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 03.06.2014 ES