Telangana High Court
Narsagouni Lakshmi vs State Of Telangana on 4 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.256 of 2025
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice)
Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms.
Shazia Parveen, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for
respondent No.5 and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for Zilla Parishad for respondent No.6.
2. This appeal takes exception to the order of learned single
Judge in W.P.No.34798 of 2024, dated 11.12.2024.
3. The appellant/writ petitioner prayed for following relief in
the Writ Petition:
“…to issue Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the inaction of
the official respondents on the complaints made by the
petitioner vide her letters dated 25.01.2024, 07.02.2024 and
18.11.2024 regarding unauthorised construction of structures
in the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.570/17EE in Rajipet
Village of Havelighanpur Mandal, Medak District as illegal,
arbitrary and unjustified violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and to issue directions to the official
respondents to restrain the private respondents Nos.7 to 11 in
erecting structures in the land owned by the petitioner in
Sy.No. 570/17EE in Rajipet Village of Havelighanpur Mandal,
Medak District and from interfering in the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the partition scheduled land…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
2
4. The said relief was not granted by the learned single Judge
mainly on the ground that the appellant has already instituted a
civil suit vide O.S.No.392 of 2023 on the file of the Principal
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak
(for short, trial Court) against unofficial respondents (respondent
Nos.7 to 11). In the said civil suit, the trial Court, on 12.01.2024,
directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit
schedule property. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the
unofficial respondents interfered with her peaceful possession and
raised construction against which she preferred number of
representations which should have been decided by the official
respondents. Learned single judge opined that once civil suit is
pending and the writ petitioner is enjoying order of status quo, no
directions are required to be issued to the official respondents
regarding erection of structure by the unofficial respondents over
the subject property.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, placed
reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Bilkis Yakub
Rasool v. Union of India 1, M/s Radha Krishan Industries v.
1
W.P.(Crl.) No.491 of 2022.
3
State of Himachal Pradesh 2, Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v.
State of Gujarat 3, State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh
Verma 4, Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust v. Union
of India 5, P.K.Ghosh v. J.G. Rajput 6 and M/s. Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan 7 and urged
that the right to property is flowing from Article 300A of the
Constitution. The appellant is a widow. Though the official
respondents herein are not parties to the said civil suit, they are
under obligation to decide the pending representations of the
appellant. The learned single Judge erred in not issuing
necessary directions to the official respondents.
6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
7. During the course of hearing, this Court raised two queries.
Firstly, when admittedly the appellant is enjoying the protection of
‘status-quo’ order in the pending suit filed by her, why she cannot
avail the remedy under the civil law for breach of status-quo order.
Secondly, whether there exists an enabling provision for preferring
an application for the present grievance, and in turn, the official
2
(2021) 3 SCR 406.
3
Civil Appeal No.11000 of 2024, decided on 21.10.2024.
4
(2002) 13 SCC 189.
5
Civil Appeal No.4444 of 2010, decided on 04.10.2012.
6
AIR 1996 SC 513.
7
(2010) 10 SCR 1070.
4
respondents are under any statutory obligation to take a decision
on her representations. Sadly, our repeated queries went in vain
and learned counsel for the appellant did not answer the same.
8. The endeavour of Courts, in our opinion, should be to avoid
multiplicity of litigation, more-so, when it is on different fora. The
appellant’s civil suit is already pending and, if the unofficial
respondents are acting contrary to the order of status-quo, the
appellant is not remediless and can avail efficacious remedy under
civil law. Thus, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has taken
a plausible view for not issuing directions for deciding
representations by the official respondents.
9. Furthermore, as noticed above, the appellant has not
pointed out any statutory provision from any statute which
enables the appellant to file such representations and, in turn,
makes it obligatory for the official respondents to decide the same.
In absence of establishing the aforesaid, no Writ of
Mandamus/direction can be issued (see Director of Settlements,
A.P. v. M.R. Apparao 8, Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind
v. Union of India 9, Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v.
8
(2002) 4 SCC 638
9
(2007) 4 MPLJ 548 (12)
5
Rafiqunnisa M.Khalifa 10 and Indore Development Authority &
Anr. V. Sansar Publication Pvt. Ltd. 11).
10. So far judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant are concerned, in those cases the Courts have not
issued directions for initiation of parallel proceedings.
11. Pertinently, in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool (supra), the
Apex Court opined that rule of law means, wherever and whenever
the State fails to perform its duties, the Court would step in to
ensure that the rule of law prevails over the abuse of the process
of law.
12. Sadly, the learned counsel for the appellant despite repeated
queries did not point out any statutory provision which makes it
obligatory for the official respondents to entertain and decide the
representations of the appellant.
13. As noticed above, in our view, the learned single Judge has
taken a plausible view which does not warrant any interference by
10
(2019) 5 SCC 119
11
ILR 2019 MP 742 (DB)
6
this Court (see The Management of Narendra & Company Pvt.
Ltd. v. The Workmen of Narendra & Company 12).
14. Resultantly, the appeal sans substance and is hereby
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 04.03.2025
TJMR
12
(2016) 3 SCC 340
[ad_1]
Source link