Disposed

S. Upesh Singh v. The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally

Telangana HC2 Dec 2010WP/25799/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the respondents' interference alleging illegal dispossession threats regarding agricultural land near the Musi river. The court found the petitioners were improperly levelling land for waste dumping rather than horticulture. The petition was disposed of conditioned on the promise to only raise grass and horticulture without construction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of with liberty to respondents to take action if petitioners engage in activities other than raising grass and horticulture or encroach government land.

S. Upesh Singh Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.25799 of 2010

¶3

DT.02.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

S.Upesh Singh and others

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally, Hyderabad and others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Srinivas

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Revenue

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.60 (TSLR No.6), Ac.0.33 guntas in Survey No.61/A (TSLR No.8) and Ac.0.22 guntas in Survey No.61/AA (TSLR No.8), situated in Ward Nos.183 and 192, Blocks ‘B’ and ‘K’ of Bagh Lingampally, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad, including premises bearing H.Nos.3-1-630 and 631, without issuing notice, as illegal and

¶15

unconstitutional.

¶16

I have heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶17

The petitioners are pattadars of the above-mentioned land. As these lands are located adjacent to Musi riverbed, construction of structures of every nature is prohibited. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have not undertaken any construction activity, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been interfering with their activity, on being instigated by respondent No.3 to prevent the petitioners from enjoying the lands.

¶18

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia stated that during inspection of the lands on 27.09.2010, the Special Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor has reported that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are illegally dumping huge quantities of morrum and other waste material in Musi river near Kachiguda situated in Survey Nos.60, 61/A and 61/AA; and T.S.Nos.1, 6, 1/2, and 8, Blocks ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘J’ and ‘K’, Ward Nos.183 and 192 of Lingampally Village, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad, over an extent of 4564 sq.mts. It is further averred that due to this activity, the river flow is getting obstructed resulting in inundation of the low level areas all along Musi river bank causing danger to human life, apart from nuisance and injury to the health of the people. That as the petitioners are changing the nature of the land without permission from the competent authority and trespassed into the Government land in T.S.Nos.1 and 1/2, the petitioners are asked to refrain from indulging in those activities.

¶19

The respondents placed reliance on Section 24 of the A.P. (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and pleaded that

¶20

water bodies have to be protected. It is further averred that as the property in question is situated in the banks of Musi river, the land can be utilized only for raising grass, but whereas the petitioners are changing the nature of the land by dumping waste material and that if the petitioners utilize the land for raising grass, there would not have been any objection for revenue authorities.

¶21

In their reply, the petitioners have denied the abovementioned allegations and asserted that apart from raising grass, the petitioners are intending to develop horticulture.

¶22

In support of the plea that the petitioners have been dumping waste material, the respondents have filed photographs, a perusal of which, would clearly support this allegation. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that levelling of the land is undertaken by the petitioners for the purpose of raising horticulture. But, looking at the photographs filed by the respondents, I am unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel. The activity of raising horticulture requires the land to be soft and the same ground conditions, which are similar to raising of crops and other vegetation. A perusal of the photographs filed by the respondents at page-15 of the material papers filed along with the counter affidavit, clearly belies the plea of the petitioners that the land is being levelled for horticulture.

¶23

Be that as it may, as the petitioners have undertaken that they will not carry on any activity other than raising grass and horticulture over the patta lands, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if and when the petitioners seek to convert the nature of the land into any other form for the purpose of raising construction or

¶24

indulge in activities other than agricultural, raising grass and horticulture. If the petitioners are found encroaching any part of the Government land, the respondents are permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for their eviction. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32921 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 02.12.2010. VGB

S. Upesh Singh v. The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Upesh Singh v. The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally

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

Papireddigari Yashodamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Laxmi Bai Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Principal

Sk. Vasantha Vs TheMandal Revenue Officer

N. Aseervadam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Stanley Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Koneti Ramakotaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh