Writ Is Not A Proper Remedy For Seriously Disputed Question Of Facts That Are Matters Of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Brief Facts of the case

The Writ Petition was filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in not paying compensation for the acquisition of land.

The Petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was a private trust running a Dharmasatram/Choultry in the subject land and village. It was the case of the Petitioner that the 2^nd Respondent Corporation had taken over the land and established a bus station therein but had not paid them any compensation whatsoever. The petitioner submitted that there was no dispute about the essential facts and that as the land was highhandedly taken over by the respondents for construction of a bus stand, they were bound to pay the compensation.

For respondents, Standing counsel Sri Durga Prasad argued that the land was "voluntarily donated'" by the trustees to the State Road Transport Corporation in 1988 and was not forcibly taken. Since the land was donated free of cost the question of payment of compensation did not arise. Furthermore, the bus stand was constructed in 1989. It was asserted that from the date of construction till the Writ Petition, petitioners never approached the respondents or any authorities for compensation.

The counsel for respondent also shared documentary evidence to prove his point that the land was donated free of cost. In addition, it was contended that the case including forcible occupation were matter of evidence. There were disputed questions of fact which could not be decided in a writ petition.

Observation of the Court

On closer examination of the case, Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu observed that the case had fundamental question to be decided about the land i.e. whether the land was donated or occupied. Was the land "forcibly taken over" was another issue. The petitioner's inaction for years was also clearly visible. There was no "gift deed' but per se some contemporaneous evidence was produced.

Thus, it held that there were seriously disputed questions of fact which required evidence to be decided. The same cannot be done in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court said.

Reliance was placed on Narender v. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and Others, (2003) where a single Judge had held that where there is seriously disputed question of facts writ is not a proper remedy.

The Writ Petition was, therefore, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies available to him.

Case Title: Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 48

Click Here To Read/Download Order