Question Of Title Can't be Adjudicated Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that title disputes cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Courts in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since the writ proceedings are summary in nature. “In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge on the basis of averments made by the private respondents in their counter with regard to title of the appellants...
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that title disputes cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Courts in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since the writ proceedings are summary in nature.
“In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge on the basis of averments made by the private respondents in their counter with regard to title of the appellants erred in adjudicating the question of title in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is not permissible.”
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar further held that the Court had erred in adjudicating upon an issue that was not part of the prayer or pleadings.
“The learned Single Judge erred in examining the title of the vendor of the appellants in the absence of any challenge to the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that in a writ petition filed by the appellants impugning the action of the TSIIC and its officials in forcibly taking possession of the land of which the appellants are in possession, the question of title of the appellants, in the light of the stand taken by the private respondents in the counter could not have been examined.”
BACKGROUND FACTS
Proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 was initiated in respect of a land admeasuring 525.39 acres situated in Survey No. 83 in Ranga Reddy District. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed common order and declared a portion of 99.07 acres in Survey No. 83 as surplus land. The Government acquired the surplus land. After several litigations, it was held that the said land was not surplus and the possession was returned possession to the GPA holder of the land owners. The portion of 99 acres were notionally referred as land in Survey No. 83/2.
Thereafter, proceedings were initiated in respect of land in Survey No.83 under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In 2008, the Appellants purchased 53 acres land in Survey No. 83/2 by way of seven registered sale deeds.
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) after reorganization of the State became TSIIC. The officials of TSIIC tried to interfere with the possession of Appellants and demolished the fencing installed on subject land without notice. The Appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking to declare the actions of TSIIC as illegal and void and to further direct TSIIC not to demolish the structures raised by the Appellants and not to remove the fencing blue sheets. The Respondents argued that the Appellants did not have title over the subject land.
On 28.04.2023, the High Court dismissed the writ petition while holding that the appellants are guilty of suppression of vital information and the petition lacks bona fides. It was further opined that the Appellants failed to prove their title on the subject land.
The Appellants filed an intra court appeal against the order dated 28.04.2023.
HIGH COURT VERDICT
The issue before the Court was whether the Single Judge could have decided the title of the Appellants in a writ petition. The Court relied on Supreme Court decision in Sohan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529, wherein it was held that question of title is to be determined in civil suit and not in writ jurisdiction. Further, in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, AIR 1964 SC 1419, it was held that the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief.
The Court after hearing the parties held “In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the question of title of a party cannot be gone into in a writ Qpetition......Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge on the basis of averments made by the private respondents in their counter with regard to title of the appellants erred in adjudicating the question of title in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is not permissible."
The Court held Therefore that the Single Judge could not have decided the title of the Appellants in a writ petition. Further, a High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot grant a relief which has not been pleaded for by the petitioner. Therefore, upon the mere submission of Respondents that the Appellants do not have title in respect of the subject land, the Single Judge could not have examined the title of the vendor of the Appellants in absence of any challenge to the registered sale deeds executed in favour of Appellants.
The Court noted that the Appellants had placed all material on record before the Single Judge, which would be appreciated in a suit for possession. The Order dated 28.04.2023 has been set aside by the Court and the Respondents have been restrained from disposssing the Appellants and from demolishing their structures on the subject land.
“The respondents are restrained from dispossessing the appellants in respect of the land measuring 53.00 acres situated in survey No.83/2 of Raidurg Panmakta Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District except in accordance with law. The respondents are also restrained from demolishing the fencing sheets and constructions raised by the appellants without taking recourse to law.”
Case Title: M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation & Ors.
Case No.: WRIT APPEAL No.697 of 2023
Counsel for Appellants: Harin Raval, Senior Counsel.
Counsel for respondents: Mr. Harender Pershad (Senior Counsel and Special Government Pleader), Md. Nawaz Hyder Ali, Shyam S. Agarwal, T. Rathnakar, E.Ajay Reddy (Senior Counsel), K.Durga Prasad and K.Ratnam.