Petitioner challenged demolition of her structure alleging ownership of land in Sy.No.48. Court noted conflicting evidence regarding land boundaries and protected water tank limits. Petitioner was directed to have her land surveyed to confirm occupancy outside protected Sy.No.67 before further state interference, leading to disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19146 OF 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition is instituted by Smt Zareena Sultana, W/o Sajid Miyah, a resident of New Town, Mahaboobnagar, seeking for a declaration that action of the respondents 2 and 3 - the Tahsildar and the local municipality in demolishing the structure raised by her in a plot admeasuring 200 Sq.yds as bad in law. The case of the petitioner is that she owns and possesses the plot of land measuring 200 Sq.yds situated in Ward No.1, Block No.5, New Town, Mahaboobnagar. She acquired this by way of registered conveyance deed bearing No.2671 of 2000 dated 25.08.2000. She obtained permission for construction of a house from the local municipality on 30.03.2003. It is her case that land owned and possessed by her is situated in Sy.No.48, which is away from the boundary of Sy.No.67, which is a Shikam land of Peddachervu. Therefore, she complains all of the high hand action of the respondents 2 and 3 herein in interfering and or demolishing the structures raised by her.
2. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has swiftly reacted in the matter by securing instructions in writing from the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar, wherein it is brought out that Peddachervu Shikam land in Sy.No.67 comprises of vast extent of land of Ac.96.07 guntas and it is a Government land situated within the town limits containing a tank bed. It was further pointed out that this Court in WP.No.7773 of 2006 passed orders on 28.04.2006 directing that no part of land in Sy.No.67 of Mahaboobnagar should be utilized for any purpose other than water tank purpose and that the State should endeavour to preserve and protect the Peddachervu tank. It was also further pointed out that in terms of the directions issued by this Court in WP.No.7773 of 2006, a survey of demarcation of the entire extent of land falling in Sy.No.67 has been undertaken and the boundaries/stones for the Peddachervu tank have been accordingly fixed. It is stated that when some temporary construction of a tin shed was noticed, within the limits of Sy.No.67, necessary steps have been taken for removing this temporary
structure. That, according to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue cannot be objected to in view of the directions issued by this Court on the purchase auction in WP.No.7773 of 2006.
3. I am in complete agreement with the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. All water bodies have got to be preserved and safeguarded. No construction should be allowed to be made within the Shikam land of water bodies. Unless the state preserves and protects the water bodies and also takes effective measures for conserving the same, the environmental equilibrium cannot be maintained. It is therefore fundamental that, every water body should be jealously guarded and protected from being encroached upon and the Revenue establishment should notice for any such encroachments. Prompt action has got to be undertaken for removal of such encroachments forthwith.
4. However, in their anxiety to preserve and protect the water body, the State or its officers shall not seek to evict persons from private patta lands. As could be seen from the sketch prepared after the survey operations for the land in Sy.No.67 of Peddachervu, I could clearly notice that lands in Sy.No.48 are adjoining to Sy.No.67. If the petitioner owns land in Sy.No.48, which land is not tank bed or Shikam land of Peddachervu, the respondents shall not interfere with either the constructions made as on today or likely to be made henceforth. But however, should anyone, including the writ petitioner trespass into Sy.No.67 and seek to make any constructions in the Shikam land of Peddachervu situated in Sy.No.67 of Mahaboobnagar, the respondents will be justified in preventing any such constructions to come up there. Therefore, it is appropriate that the writ petitioner should have the land owned by her identified and measured by taking recourse to survey of operations. Should the survey reveal that her land is situated in Sy.No.48, as claimed by her, the respondents will refrain from interfering with her private patta land. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of as consented to by the learned Government Pleader. The instructions passed on to the learned Government Pleader by
the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar are taken on record.
5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J July 12, 2011 SP
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.19146 OF 2011
July 12, 2011
SP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether state officers should demolish structures on land claimed to be private patta land ad jogging a protected water tank.
Whether the petitioner's land falls within the protected Shikam land boundaries.
Whether to direct a survey to determine the exact extent of the petitioner's land before further action.
Smt. Zareena Sultana
Tahsildar
Local Municipality
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
