IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 21809 of 2014 BETWEEN Mudunuru Sita Rama Raju AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.3. In view of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to other respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of 280 square yards of land in Survey No.58/2 of Vepagunta Village, GVMC area, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the various other properties of his father were disposed of by a family settlement deed, dated 26.05.1999, and in lieu of the gift settlement in his favour dated 27.05.1980, he paid off the amounts to his sister, who is impleaded as respondent No.5. It is further stated that petitioner executed a further gift settlement deed dated 29.05.1999 in favour of respondent No.5, but she did not accept the same and she did not take possession of the property. It is stated that in lieu of that, the said gift settlement deed was cancelled by a registered document dated 17.03.2007 and the issue is now pending before VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in A.S.No.147 of 2010. It further appears that another suit viz., O.S.No.345 of 2006, is also pending before the court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for partition of 200 square yards of land in survey No.58/2, referred to above.
In the meanwhile, it appears that 34 square yards from the said land was acquired by the respondent No.3-Corporation and the T.D.R. Certificate No.670 is stated to have been issued to respondent No.5. Since the petitioner is disputing the claim and title of respondent No.5 to receive the said T.D.R. Certificate by claiming title, there were exchange of notices between petitioner, respondent No.5 as well as official respondents. It appears that pending enquiry into the said legal notice, respondent No.3- Corporation issued a notice dated 03.01.2013 to respondent No.5 directing her that the said T.D.R. is kept in abeyance awaiting final orders of the Hon’ble courts in the civil suits. However, the present writ petition is filed alleging that respondent No.3-Corporation and other officials respondents are not responding to the legal notices.
3. Though the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to make claim for title against respondent No.5, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 was required to get instructions as to whether any claim was made by respondent No.5 on the basis of said T.D.R. Certificate.
4. Mr.G.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the said T.D.R. Certificate appears to have not been utilized by respondent No.5, in any manner, nor any claim is made as per the records of the Corporation.
5. In view of that, the apprehension of the petitioner that the said T.D.R. would be utilized for claiming further benefits is clearly misplaced. So far as the claim of the petitioner with respect to title is concerned, it is for the petitioner to approach a competent civil court, if not already approached, and seek appropriate remedy. The present writ petition, however, cannot be a substitute for adjudication by a competent civil court in view of several disputed questions of law and fact involved in the matter, which requires appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as well.
With the liberty to the petitioner to approach competent civil court, writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 20, 2014 LMV