HYDERABAD: A division Bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda, recently ruled in favour of the Telangana State Financial Corporation (formerly known as the AP Fin Corporation) over 18 acres of valuable land parcel in Survey No 307 at Gajularamaram village in Quthbullapur mandal of Rangareddy District, by setting aside the orders passed by a single judge.
The bench concluded that the single judge had strayed into territory that is solely within the purview of Civil Court Jurisdiction. It is not for the writ court to decide a petitioner’s title and possession in a process under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. It is common law that a writ procedure is intended to enforce a right rather than to establish it.
The existence of such a privilege is required for a writ court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, it observed. Declaration of title and possession over land would need a review and assessment of many factual factors, including the production and analysis of documentary and oral evidence. Though there is no prohibition on a writ court gathering evidence under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, such an effort should be avoided because a writ court is not the suitable venue for the determination of title and possession.
The division bench also stated that the Single Judge recognised the difficulties, but posed the question of the nature of the land and observed that what was essentially required to be decided was whether the land was vested in the government pursuant to the 1955 Act or was it vested in the government free from all encumbrances pursuant to surrender of surplus land by the landholders after statutory adjudication in the case of the landholders. The single judge continued to state that there was no problem in locating the ceded land, and so the disagreement was not of the type that would need the collecting of oral evidence warranting the commencement of a civil suit.
The division bench further observed that the single judge made a fundamental mistake by entering a domain that a writ court should avoid. Finally, the single judge stated that because respondents did not challenge the State Government’s order alienating land in favour of the Corporation, they would have no right to object to the State Government allocating or alienating land in favour of the Corporation, but respondents can certainly project their right, title, and interest in respect of their land.
Finally, the court determined that these are questions best left to civil courts to resolve. As a result, the Single Judge’s conclusions and findings cannot be upheld in any way. For the reasons stated, the bench did not concur with the Single Judge’s line of reasoning and findings. Respondents, however, would be free to demonstrate their right to what they claim to be their land in a civil court, subject to limitations.