Telangana High Court
Ganna Saraswathi vs The State Of Telangana on 24 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1425 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)
This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant
invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.30423 of 2024, by which the writ
petition filed by the appellant was disposed of.
2. Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr.Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government
Pleader for Endowment Department appearing for respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 5, Mr.Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent
Nos.3 and 4, and Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.6 Temple, on the question of admission.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated
are that the appellant is claiming that she is the owner and
possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.16 gts. in
2
Sy.No.633/2 and Ac.1.11 ½ gts. in Sy.No.633/3, totally
Ac.2.27 ½ gts., situated at Akupamula Revenue, Mungagal
Mandal, Suryapet District, having purchased the same through
registered sale deeds dated 15.07.1978 and 17.01.1980.
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are interfering with the subject
property of the appellant without issuing any notice and
without following due process of law. Questioning the same,
the appellant filed W.P.No.30423 of 2024. Learned Single
Judge disposed of the said writ petition on the ground that the
appellant raised several disputed questions of fact and the
same cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition and granted
liberty to the appellant to avail the remedy of approaching the
Endowments Tribunal constituted under the Endowments Act
for adjudicating her right and entitlement over the subject
property. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the
present writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
respondent Nos.5 and 6 without issuing notice either under the
provisions of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or
under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious
3
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, interfering with the
subject property and the learned Single Judge without
considering the said fact disposed of the writ petition. He
further submitted that the name of respondent No.6 Temple
was not included in the revenue records and the appellant is in
possession of the subject property. In these circumstances,
learned Single Judge ought to have directed respondent Nos.5
and 6 to follow the due procedure as contemplated under law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 Temple
submitted that the subject property stands in the name of
respondent No.6 and the appellant is not having any right,
interest over the subject property.
6. This Court considered the submissions made by the
respective counsel and perused the material available on
record. Admittedly, the appellant is claiming rights over the
subject property basing upon the registered sale deeds.
However, respondent No.6 is disputing the claim of the
appellant.
4
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant as well
as respondent No.6 is claiming rights over the subject property.
As there are serious disputes with regard to right, title and
possession of the subject property, learned Single Judge rightly
dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to the appellant
to approach the Endowments Tribunal for adjudicating her
right and entitlement over the subject property.
8. It is equally well settled legal principle that the disputed
questions of fact cannot be decided in a summary proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per the
judgments of the Apex Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari
Shivam 1 and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh 2.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
2 (2021) 6 SCC 771
5
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
____________________________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 24.12.2024
mar