Dismissed

Sivalikam Bala Krishnaiah v. The District Collector Nellore

Telangana HC7 Jul 2009WP/21333/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. prohibiting entry to government grazing lands were dismissed. The court held the order was warranted to maintain peace due to villagers' objections to unlawful occupation. Petitioners advised to seek alternative lands from revenue authorities.

What did the court decide?

No costs; petitioners open to seek relief from revenue authorities for alternative lands.

Sivalikam Bala Krishnaiah Vs The District Collector… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 28219 of 2007 and 21333 of 2008

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 28219 of 2007

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Sivalinkam Bala Krishnaiah 2 Sivalinkam Dasaiah S/o Sundaraiah 3 Dontala Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramanaiah

¶9

Vemula Chedu Gram panchayat, All Are r/o Patalapaly (V) Sydapuram (M),

¶10

Nellore District.

¶11

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The District Collector, nellore, Nellore District.

¶14

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guduru, Nellore District.

¶15

3 The Thasildar, Sydapuram mandal, Nellore District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appopriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring aC. 4.00 of 1st petitioner, 4.00 of 2nd petitioner and Ac. 3.00 of 3rd petitioners of Pathalapally (V) Vemula Chedu Grama Panchayat, Sydapuram (M) Nellore District and consequently direct the respondents to issue necessary pattas of the above land to the petitioners and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.C.VANI REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO : 21333 of 2008

¶21

Between:

¶22

1 Sivalikam Bala Krishnaiah S/o.Sundaraiah,

¶23

Patalapally(V) Sydapuram(M) Nellore District 2 Sivalikam Dasaiah, S/o.Sundaraiah, Patalapally(V) Sydapuram(M) Nellore District 3 Dontala Venkateswarlu S/o.Ramanaiah Vemula Chedu Gram Panchayat

¶24

Patalapally(V) Sydapuram(M) Nellore District

¶25

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶26

AND

¶27

1 The District Collector Nellore Nellore Dist

¶28

2 The Revenue Divisional officer Guduru Nellore District

¶29

3 The Tahasildar Sydapuram(M) Nellore District

¶30

4 The S.I Of Police Sydapuram(M) Nellore District

¶31

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of constitution of India declaring the action of the Tahsildar in issuing the proceedings in Rc B.281/99 dt 17-09-07 U/s 145 CRPC with regard to land in Sy No.1 so far as to an extent of ac 4.00 ac 4.00 & Ac 3.00 Which is in possion of the petitioners of Patalapally(V) Vemula Chedu Panchayat Sydapuram(M) P.S Nellore District and consequetly set aside the same and pass

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.C.VANI REDDY

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶35

The Court made the following common order:

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶37

W.P.No. 28219 of 2007

¶38

And W.P.No. 21333 of 2008

¶39

07-07-2009

¶40

Oral Common Order:

¶41

The petitioners in these two writ petitions claim de facto occupation of government lands since the time of their forefathers, in survey No.1 of Pathalapally village, Vemula Chedu Gram Panchayat, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore. After several years of such uninterrupted but unlawful possession of government land, the petitioners assert to have approached the 3^rd respondent for grant of pattas. They were grnated Eksal lease on 20-11-1990 which is stated to have been renewed till 1995. Thereafter too and without any entitlement even by way of a lease the petitioners continued in occupation of the lands. The lands that the petitioners occupied are classified in the revenue records as ‘grazing poramboke’. The entire extent of lands in survey No.1 is Ac. 158-32 gts., all of which are classified as ‘grazing poramboke’ are utilized for grazing by the cattle belonging to the villagers.

¶42

As the villagers were protesting to the occupation of grazing lands by the petitioners and others and this was potentially having a law and order dimension, the 3^rd respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 17-092007, in purported exercise of powers under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the recorded ground that the order is issued in order to maintain peace and tranquillity in the village, prohibited entry of any person into the lands in survey No.1 of total extent of Ac.158-32 gts., classified as ‘grazing poramboke’ until settlement of land disputes.

¶43

The petitioners assert that since they are in peaceful, but unlawful possession of the lands in question, they ought not to have been disturbed by the exercise of power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This is a contention that is stated to be rejected. The 3^rd respondent has by the impugned proceedings recorded the satisfaction that the exercise of power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was warranted to maintain

¶44

peace and tranquillity in the village. Since the lands in question are demonstrably ‘grazing lands’ meant for the entire village, these lands cannot be purloined or occupied by the petitioners to the detriment of the general community. As the villagers object to such deprivation of grazing rights of their cattle on account of the illegal occupation of lands by these petitioners, there is potential law and order situation on the chords and it is statutory obligation of the 3^rd respondent to exercise power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Section 145 Cr.P.C. confers a discretion on the Executive Magistrate to exercise the powers therein in exigent circumstances. It is trite that discretion in such circumstances is a power coupled with a duty to exercise in appropriate circumstances.

¶45

On the aforesaid analysis, no interference is called for on the impugned orders of the 3^rd respondent. There are no merits. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. It is however open to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief before the Revenue authorities for assignment of alternative lands, as advised.

¶46

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 07-07-2009 Pvks

Sivalikam Bala Krishnaiah v. The District Collector Nellore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivalikam Bala Krishnaiah v. The District Collector Nellore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dokka Syamsunder Singh Vs The STate of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Ambakam Selvam Vs The District Collector

G. Ramakrishna S/o Late G. Narayanappa Vs TheCommissioner of Land Revenue

Suda Rama Bhadra Purushottam Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Sobhanadri Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

V.V. Rajendsra Prasad Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District