HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24180 of 2006
and
CONTEMPT CASE No.501 of 2014
in
W.P.M.P. No.30875 of 2006
in
WRIT PETITION No.24180 of 2006
Date: April 22, 2014
Between:
Priyadarshini Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad, represented by its President Rajeshwar Sawji.
… Petitioner And
1. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & another.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24180 of 2006 and
CONTEMPT CASE No.501 of 2014
in
W.P.M.P. No.30875 of 2006
in
WRIT PETITION No.24180 of 2006
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Public Societies Registration Act which consists of 694 members. The petitioner purchased different pieces of land in Survey Nos.184, 185, 186 and 195 at Begumpet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the original owners under an agreement dated 09.03.1981. The said owners purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 19.02.1969 and possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner and the petitioner has been in possession of the same. While so, it appears that certain persons claiming to be tenants of the said land filed an application for restoration of possession before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and the said application was allowed by order dated 17.10.2002. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Joint Collector, by his order dated 26.02.2005, allowed the appeal. Challenging the same, the tenants filed C.R.P. No.1511 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 28.02.2006. A Special Leave Petition against the said order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.5965 of 2006 dated 18.08.2006. Apart from the said litigation, the petitioner is also having dispute with the vendors. The petitioner filed O.S.No.1090 of 1994 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said judgment and decree, the petitioner deposited balance sale consideration of Rs.8,16,000/- in the Court and the Court directed execution of registered sale deed. However, the matter is pending before this Court in C.C.C.A.No.98 of 2005.
3. While so, the officials of the 2nd respondent Corporation trespassed into the land and started digging the area for laying road. In those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the lands of the petitioner without following due process of law.
4. Though no counter-affidavit was filed for all these years, now a counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that after filing of the contempt case alleging violation of status quo orders dated 11.12.2006, a report was called from the Engineering Division and it disclosed that representations dated 30.09.2013 were made by the dwellers of the neighbouring lands in Survey Nos.193/2 to 194/5 and 194/8/1 requesting the Corporation for laying roads in the public interest by enclosing copy of the orders in C.R.P. No.5853 of 2010 dated 15.04.2011 wherein this Court while dismissing the C.R.P. observed that the petitioner society was not having title deed in respect of the subject property in their favour. After receipt of representations and on inspection of the site it was noticed that a road was existing along with sewer line and electricity line in that area. Taking the same into consideration the work of laying CC road by RMC in Prakashnagar extension main road in 148-Begumpet Corporator division under Division XI, GHMC was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs by the then Zonal Commissioner, NZ, GHMC, utilizing the corporation funds. During execution of the work it has come to light that the said property was under court dispute and the work of laying CC road was stopped. It is further stated that until receipt of the petitioner’s letter dated 07.03.2013, circle staff were not aware of the orders of the Court dated 22.11.2006 and if the Corporation wants to go ahead with the laying of CC road and provide amenities to the neighbouring land owners, the Corporation would proceed in accordance with law.
5. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is clear that the petitioner was claiming title under an agreement of sale dated 09.03.1981 and subsequently filed O.S.No.1090 of 1994 seeking specific performance of the said agreement of sale and the said suit was decreed on 16.09.2002. However, an appeal in C.C.C.A. No.98 of 2005 is pending in this Court. The petitioner took possession of the property under the said agreement of sale and has been in possession of the same. There was no claim by the Government at any point of time with regard to the said land and admittedly the said land is a private land and the Corporation wanted to lay a road by interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court by order dated 22.11.2006 granted status quo and the same has been in operation till today. When the respondents wanted to lay a road by ignoring the said order, recently the petitioner filed C.C.No.501 of 2014 and when a notice was issued, the work was stopped. Now, a counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents in the writ petition as well as in the contempt case stating that if the Corporation wants to go ahead with laying of C.C. road in public interest, they would follow due process of law.
6. In view of the statement made by the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.2.06 guntas in Survey No.184; Ac.2.06 guntas in Survey No.185; Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.186 and Ac.0.30 guntas in Survey No.195 situated at Begumpet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, except in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, no further orders are necessary in the contempt case and the same is accordingly closed.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 22, 2014 BSB
38 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24180 of 2006
and
CONTEMPT CASE No.501 of 2014
in
W.P.M.P. No.30875 of 2006
in
WRIT PETITION No.24180 of 2006
Date: April 22, 2014
BSB