AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ appeal is arising out of an order, dated 01.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.101 of 2016, by which the learned Single Judge has directed the execution of a registered sale deed in respect of a plot, which is under the ownership of the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was preferred by the respondent in the present writ appeal (writ petitioner) for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation to regularise the extent of 300 square yards in survey No.1066 of Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, which was adjoining the respondent herein/writ petitioner’s plot/house bearing House No.1-8-239/1. The facts of the case further reveal that the Standing Committee of the then Municipal Council of Warangal on 31.05.2003 passed a resolution resolving that any house owner, who is an encroacher, shall be entitled for regularisation of the area under encroachment by paying money at the rates prescribed by the Council.
The respondent herein/writ petitioner, as reflected from the record, was the owner of 355.55 square yards and purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 01.07.1999 from one N.Sampath Rao and constructed house bearing No.1-8-239/1. The plot adjacent to the petitioner’s plot admeasuring 300 square yards was allegedly in possession of the vendor of the respondent herein/writ petitioner and the respondent herein/writ petitioner came up with a case that he is also in possession of the excess land to an extent of 300 square yards.
The respondent herein/writ petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that the Municipal Council has permitted in respect of similarly placed persons to purchase the plots adjacent to their house plots in the light of the Government Memo dated 15.11.2000 and sale deeds have been executed in respect of such persons. The respondent herein/writ petitioner came up before this Court stating that he is an identically placed person and therefore, in respect of plot, which he has encroached, a sale deed should be executed.
The facts further reveal that a detailed and exhaustive counter affidavit was filed by the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation stating that the plot in question was allotted to the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation by the State Government with an aim and object to sell it by conducting public auction and by no stretch of imagination, Government property belonging to the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation can be allotted to a person, who is an encroacher. It was also denied by the Municipal Corporation that the respondent herein/writ petitioner is in possession of the plot in question and a prayer was made to dismiss the writ petition.
In respect of the allegation that other persons have been granted benefit by regularising the encroachment, it was stated that the person in respect of whom regularisation order has been issued was having a triangular plot and the plot adjacent to him was again a narrow triangular plot and in those circumstances, the permission for regularising the encroachment was accorded. The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation has filed a map in respect of the so called identically placed person at page 67 of the writ appeal paper book and the same reveals that in respect of a triangular plot, the adjacent triangular plot was regularised. In respect of the other alleged identically placed person, a sale deed is on record and the same reveals that a small piece of land, which is a small strip, has been regularised by the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation. Whereas in the present case, the plot is having an area of 300 square yards and the respondent herein/writ petitioner wants the allotment of plot without following the transparent process.
The other important aspect of the case is that the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation before the learned Single Judge came up with a case that the property, which is subject matter of the dispute, is a valuable property adjacent to the existing Rythu Bazar and the Municipal Corporation intends to extend the Rythu Bazar for convenience of public at large. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 1 SCC 144 (SC). The learned Single Judge, as the benefit of regularisation was extended to the so called identically placed persons, has allowed the writ petition and paragraphs 14 to 17 of the aforesaid order are reproduced as under:-
“14. Without the layout being altered showing the subject plot as a land earmarked for communal purpose or open space or park, it is not open to the 3rd respondent to show discrimination against the petitioner and refuse to alienate the area in his occupation on ‘market value basis’ as per the resolution passed by the Warangal Municipal Council on 31.05.2003.
When the 3rd respondent had executed registered sale deeds in July 2014 in favour of third parties in respect of excess lands occupied by them within the same lay out and who are similarly placed like the petitioner, the action of the 3rd respondent in denying the same benefit to the petitioner is clearly arbitrary. The distinction sought to be made by the 3rd respondent between the other persons, in whose favour it had regularised and executed sale deeds in July, 2014, and the petitioner cannot be accepted, since the shape or size of the plot is not a relevant factor for consideration for regularization.
The contention of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner is not in possession is belied by the letter Rc.No.B/285/2009, dated 18.02.2009 addressed by Tahsildar, Hanamkonda to the District Collector, Warangal. Therefore, the said contention is also rejected.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed; the 3rd respondent is directed to regularize the excess land in petitioner’s occupation by executing a registered sale deed by collecting the existing market value pursuant to the resolution dated 31.05.2003 of the Warangal Municipal Council on par with other transferees of such land in respect of whom, admittedly registered sale deed documents No.3688 and 5740 of 2014 were executed by the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.”
This Court has carefully gone through the order of the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has directed execution of a sale deed in favour of the respondent herein/writ petitioner by collecting the existing market value in pursuant to the resolution dated 31.05.2003. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Government land belonging to the Municipal Corporation cannot be allotted just for mere asking for it and a transparent process is to be followed for allotment. Otherwise also, the Municipal Corporation has earmarked the plot as stated earlier for extending Rythu Bazar for the convenience of public at large. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation for extending the Rythu Bazar and cannot direct the allotment of land only to the petitioner without following the transparent process.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts by directing the transfer of land by comparing two cases, which were not in respect of identically placed persons at all. It is a well settled proposition of law that the State largess cannot be allotted/transferred to any person without following due process of law (tender process/auction). This Court dealing with the property belonging to the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, which was transferred by the State Government to it and by no stretch of imagination, the respondent herein/writ petitioner is entitled for allotment of land without following transparent due process of law. In case, the plea canvassed by the respondent herein/writ petitioner for allotment of encroached land to the adjacent plot owners is accepted, it would amount to granting premium to the encroachers and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.