S HEMACHALAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule nisi. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue took notice for the respondents. The Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties.

(2.) This is one of the cases which are quite often filed before this Court seeking essentially declaration of title to properties and for injunction against the public authorities. The petitioners and his father claim to have purchased the lands in Sy.No.354/2, 354/3 and 354/1 admeasuring Ac.4.97, Ac.4.97, Ac 0.97 and Ac. 3.59 respectively situated at Arooru Village Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District by registered sale deeds dated 2-11 -1981. The petitioner has sought for a writ or orter or direction, preferably one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner of his above agricultural lands as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioner in respect of the above agricultural lands. The respondents are, the District Collector, Chittoor district; the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi; and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Satyavedu Mandal. The petitioner has alleged that on 18-9-1998, the Mandal Revenue Officer attempted to take over possession of the lands without initiating any proceeding against the petitioner, but on the basis of certain orders dated 18-11-1997, 13-12-1997 and 1-5-1998 passed against one Mr. N. Chandrashekhar who was nothing to do with the above lands.

(3.) Though a writ of mandamus is sought to declare the action of the respondents as illegal and unauthorised, essentiallly what is sought is a declaration of the petitioner's title to the land properties and for injunction. If the petitioner is the lawful owner and occupier of the lands in question and if there is any interference by the public authorities of private persons, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the juridictional Civil Court for the reliefs of declaratory decrees, injunction and damages by invoking private law remedies. It is well settled that private law remedies like declaration, injunction and damage are available against the public authorities also, if they interfere with a person's property without authority of law or without recourse to law. It is contended in the affidavit that the action of the respondent in trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner would violate the constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and further that their action would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is trite to state that when a property right of a person is breached by public authorities, certainly, that act would violate the right of that person guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The question which arises for consideration is whether the resolution of such disputes should be entertained when a person straightaway approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting equally or more efficacious alternative legal remedies. The Supreme Court held in Union of India v. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 and Burmah Construction Company v. State of Orissa, AIR 1962 SC 1320 that merits of a claim to property or a disputed question of title shall not be entertained in a writ petition. The Court read the affidavit of the petitioner. In order to grant the relief to the petitioner, investigation effects, taking evidence become necessary. The jurisdictional Civil Court is the appropriate forum to decide these questions, the questions being pure questions of feet. Article 226 is essentially meant to enforce the established rights and not to establish the rights, unless in a given case, the Court finds that there are no appropriate adjudicatory forums or Courts or Tribunals to decide the rights of the parties. Ordinarily speaking, High Courts would not exercise their jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternative, adequate and efficacious legal remedy is available and the petitioner has not availed of the same before coming to the High Court. Recently, I had an occasion to deal with the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in WP No.24566 of 1998 dated 2-9-1998 (P.V. Surender Babu v. Prohibition and Excise, Superintendent, Chittoor). Therefore, there is no need to dilate this aspect further. In that view of the matter, I do not think that it is appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is imminent threat to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question. Taking that submission into account, I direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo for a period of one month from today to enable the petitioner to instiute the suit in jurisdictional Civil Court for the reliefs. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.