P.Panduranga Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-21. P.Panduranga Reddy v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2 o 2020 Between: P. Panduranga Reddy, S/o Sri Srinivas Reddy Aged about 46 years Occ Business r/o H. No 7-1-137 Reddy enclave Temple Alwal Secunderabad ,.. PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, rep by commissioner Prohibition and Excise Abkari Bhavan Old Kattal Mandi Nampally Hyderabad 500 001 2. The Dist Prohibition and Excise Officer, Siddipet Dist 3. The lnspector Prohibition and Excise Station, Cherial 4. The Telangana Geetha Parisaramika Sahakara A(hika Samkeshma Samastha, Rep by Managing Director Fifih floor, Damodaram Sanjeeviah Bhavan Sankshema Bhavan lt/asabTank Hyderabad 500 028 5. The Toddy Tappers Co-Operative Society, lnapure, rep President lnapure village, Siddipet Dist ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the action of the respondent No 2 and 3 (Dist prohibition and Excise Officer and lnspector Prohibition and Excise Cherial) trying to interfere with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the land under the cover of letlet 141912020 while while seeking physical inspection and calling for information in respect of the alleged mortgaged land for alleged dues of the year 2004 under KOTIVARALU scheme inspite of the respondent No 1 issuing GO 84 waiving off the loan as, illegal, arbitrary , and against Art 300-A of the Constitution of lndia.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couft may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T. SHARATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: ASSISTANT GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5:----- The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 2322O OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard learned counsel Mr. T. Sharath for petitioner and Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise. 2. According to the petitioner, he entered into registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in respect of land to an extent of Acs. 7. 12 guntas in Sy. Nos. 37l A, 37 and lB 37 of Inapur village with lBll Burugu Mallaiah.
Based on the said registered agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney, Burugu Mallaiah executed sale deed in favour of petitioner and ever since petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The averments made in the affudavit filed in support ol the writ petition disclose that even before the petitioner purchased the land, Mr. Burugu Mallaiah sold the land to an extent of Acs. 4. 39 guntas forming part of the same survey numbers by executing sale deed on 10. 03. 2004 in favour of Sth respondent. Thereafter, Sfi respondent mortgaged the same with lhe 4dt respondent under registered mortgage deed document no. 2724 of 2OO4. Petitioner now alleges that on the ground that Sth respondent has violated the terms granting mortgage to the 4s respondent, recently the Excise Officials have taken certain steps, which are nothing but claiming possession of the land from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he filed O. P. No.
6O of 2019 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, llyderabad on 20. 12. 2O),8 under Section 83 of Transfer of Property Act seeking leave to deposit the mortgage amount and the same is pending consideration of the said Court. J 3. Petitioner alleges that said mortgage is without possession and that Sth respondent never in possession of the land. He lurther alleges that vide G. O. Ms. No. 84, dated 20. O7 . 2019, the Government weaved off the loan availed under 'Kotivaralu' scheme and, therefore, the violation of the terms of mortgage by the 5s respondent has no significance. By virtue of the recent exercise undertaken by the Government, Sft respondent is now trying to get the possession of the very same 1and. 4 . The immediate provocation of the petitioner to institute this writ petition is, proceedings of the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Siddipet district, dated 14. 09. 2020 (Ex. P10), and the proceedings of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh.
& Excise Station,. Cherial, dated,23. O9. 2020 (Ex. P11). By proceedings of the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, dated 14. 09 . 2O2O, by referring to the earlier correspondence, he directed the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, SHO, Cheriai, to obtain the land records from the President of the Sth respondent and also to hnd out the status of the land physically and status of the land allotted and details of what cultivation is going on in the land and to submit his report to him. The proceedings dated 23. O9 . 2O2O of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector are consequent to the said directions.
By these proceedings, the President of the 5m respondent was directed to submit copies of the land records allotted to the society under 'Kotivaralu' scheme; to assist the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Cherial, for physical verification of the land; the present status of the land; what cultivation is going on in the allotted land; and the President was also directed to cover '+ the land with proper fencing by hxing a board indicating the details as how the Government allotted the land to the society. 5. It is not in dispute that by the time petitioner claimed to have purchased the land to an extent of Acs. 7. 12 guntas from Burugu Mallaiah, admittedly Burugu Mallaiah sold Acs. 4. 39 acres of land to the 5ft respondent society in the same survey number.
Whether said sale transaction was validly made, whether Burugu Mallaiah had more extent of land to accommodate both sale transactions and whether even though the purchase by the 5d respondent was earlier in point of time, but 5e respondent was not put in possession and petitioner was put in possession of entire extent of land and continued to be in possession, are all matters which require consideration in appropriate proceedings. These are questions of fact and require leading of evidence. Thus, it is for the petitioner to avail appropriate civil law remedy and assert his claim to the subject property. 6. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is tracing his title to the subject property through the 5th respondent or that 5th respondent has accepted possession claim of the petitioner. 7. Even if the Government has issued orders in G. O. Ms. No. 84, dated 2O. O7 .
20 1 9 waiving off the 1oan, it is not lor the petitioner to contend that violation of the terms of mortgage by Sth respondent does not arise and that the Government has no manner of right to interfere in the land. It is an inter se dispute between the 5d, respondent and the Government and it is for the 5th respondent-society to work out remedy as available in lau,. Thus, petitioner has to assert his title to the property and possession claim in --,--. --------'-----' -/' i appropriate proceedings, before objecting to impugned exercise undertaken by the official respondents. Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. SD/-K. SAILESHI ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri T. Sharath, Advocate [OPU cl 2. Two CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise , High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3.
Two CD Copies SM N:- HIGH COURT DATED:2111212020 rl S 14 14, o tC 3 0 DEC rtJ 2U0 a ,, P- I * * PATf-i t, ORDER WP. No. 23220 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS eL -EFr-q \r'--\"o:a
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.