Dismissed

D.Prabhakar Rao, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC21 Sept 2012WA/1187/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by D. Prabhakar Rao, Chairman of Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust, against the order of the Single Judge which dismissed an earlier writ petition for failure of respondents to act against alleged encroachment on government land.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; costs enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited within two weeks.

D.Prabhakar Rao, Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.A.NO.1187 OF 2012

¶3

DATED: 21^st SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶4

BETWEEN: D.PRABHAKAR RAO .. APPELLANT AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶5

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶6

W.A.NO.1187 OF 2012

¶7

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶8

This writ appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble single Judge dated 03-08-2012 in W.P.No.16531 of 2011, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action against the encroachers of the Government Land in Sy.No.6 to an extent of Ac.11-25 guntas situated at Tettekunta village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District pursuant to the representation dated 07-02-2011 and letter dated 10-05-2011 issued by the Additional Secretary to Government as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to issue a direction to the respondents to conduct an enquiry and take action against the encroachers as per law.

¶9

The writ petitioner claims to be Chairman of Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust, Tettekunta village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District, which was constructed by the Trust in Survey No.4 of the village about 10 years ago and that a road was laid and lights were arranged on both sides of the road. According to the petitioner, the road is passing through the government land in Survey No.6 admeasuring Acs.11.25 guntas. The petitioner further alleged that Sri Chennamaneni Jagan Mohan Rao, 4^th respondent and some others are trying to convert the land in Survey No.6 into house sites and that though he made representations to the authorities, no steps have been taken so far except calling for reports. It is further averred

¶10

that the petitioner has also filed a criminal case against 4^th respondent alleging that the road was damaged. It is also stated in the writ affidavit that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.27348 of 2010 complaining that no action was taken against the encroachers, which was disposed of on 24.1.2011 observing that the petitioner can make a fresh representation and as such a representation was made on 7.2.2011, but respondents 1 to 3 did not take any steps against the 4^th respondent.

¶11

It appears a counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent before the learned single Judge. In the said counter it has been stated that the writ petitioner suppressed the fact that several proceedings were instituted before the court and the petitions were also disposed of by the court including W.P.No.24503 of 2004. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the allegations made in the writ petition are identical almost in respect of W.P.No.24503 of 2004. In these circumstances, the relevant portion of the common order so passed in W.P.Nos.24503 of 2004, 9742 of 2005 and 3134 of 2006 and C.C.No.1162 of 2005 is necessary for us to quote, which reads as under:

¶12

“ (i) W.P.No.24503 of 2004 is dismissed observing that when schedule ‘B’ land is private patta land, either Sri Meharbaba Trust or the revenue officials cannot in any manner interfere with the title or enjoyment by the real owners.

¶13

(ii) W.P.No.9742 of 2005 is disposed of observing that if there is any interference from anybody with regard to the religious activities, they should give complaint to the Station House Officer concerned, who shall take necessary action in accordance with law. This direction shall not be construed as recognizing the right of the Trust for alienation or accepting their plea that they are in possession of entire extent of land in survey No.5 of Tettekunta village.

¶14

(iii) W.P.No.3134 of 2006 is disposed of directing the District Collector to consider proposals for alienation, if any, afresh ignoring the earlier decision taken by him in the minutes/note orders dated 20.12.2005 in file N.Dis.No.E1/5892/04, after conducting detailed enquiry.

¶15

(iv) Insofar as C.C.No.1162 of 2005 is concerned, as the Government has nothing to do with schedule ‘B’ land, Sri Meharbaba Trust or its Chairman cannot have any grievance.

¶16

The Contempt Case is dismissed.”

¶17

It appears that in the said common order, the court observed that when Schedule ‘B’ land is private patta land, either Sri Meharbaba Trust or the revenue officials cannot in any manner interfere with the title or enjoyment by the real owners. It further appears that schedule ‘B’ land, as has been stated in W.P.No.24503 of 2004 is in respect of the land in Survey No.6 where the road has been allegedly constructed by the authorities. It further appears that the Hon’ble single Judge, after taking into consideration all the facts stated before his Lordship and in view of the order passed in W.P.No.24503 of 2004 has become final, has observed as follows:

¶18

“ The petitioner suppressed such an important finding recorded by this Court, that too in a writ petition filed by himself and the present writ petition is filed once again with a plea that the land in Survey No.6 belongs to the Government and that respondent No.4 encroached upon it. He did not even make a reference to the earlier batch of writ petitions instituted by him. He appears to be a busy body in the area, functioning with the sole objective of harassing one individual or the other for his personal gains. During the course of hearing, it has come to the notice of this court that on account of his sadistic, cantankerous and frivolous litigations initiated by him, quite a large number of employees of the Electricity Supply Society had to file fairly large number of writ petitions to protect their rights.

¶19

In pursuit of his selfish ends, the petitioner has wasted the time and energy of the Officers of the Government and harassed the persons whoever have come to his evil notice. Precious time of this Court was also wasted by him. But for the fact that the petitioner is an aged person, the feasibility of directing steps against him for the acts of malicious prosecution, would have been considered. However, he cannot be let off just like that and unless certain measures are taken, he is certain to continue his habit.”

¶20

In these circumstances, his Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs.15,000/-. It is further directed that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.15,000/- with the District Collector, Karimnagar within a period of two months from that date. It was further directed to release the said

¶21

costs to the benefit of Girls Hostel at Vemulawada run by the Social Welfare Department.

¶22

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to harp on the point before us that a person from the lower echelons of Revenue Department has filed the counter affidavit in W.P.No.24503 of 2004 stating that it is not a government land. But, after considering the material placed before us we could find out that the person from the lower echelons of the Revenue Department, as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is nonetheless the District Collector. We do not know whether the said District Collector would be equated with the lowest echelons of the Revenue Department and that too after suppression of material facts from the Court in respect to the observation made in W.P.No.24503 of 2004 that ‘when schedule ‘B’ land is private patta land, either Sri Meharbaba Trust or the revenue officials cannot in any manner interfere with the title or enjoyment by the real owners’, and, more so, when it was within his knowledge that the said writ petition was filed by the same petitioner.

¶24

Therefore, by any means the appellant/petitioner cannot try to protect himself or to get any benefit from this Court in any manner whatsoever. In our opinion, this writ appeal is misconceived, without any merits and has only wasted the time of the Court, as has been rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble single Judge in his order. No reasons have been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as to why they have not filed any review petition to the order in the earlier writ petition, and that no appeal was also preferred and as such that order has become final. Even then, the appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition to get benefit from the court, by suppressing the facts and now tried to turn around and has filed this writ appeal before us, which is deprecated. The costs which have been awarded by the Hon’ble single Judge is not much to even in consonance with the writ appeal before us. Hence, the costs which have been awarded by the

¶25

Hon’ble single Judge is modified to Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) to be paid within two weeks from today. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed with costs as directed

¶26

above.

¶27

List the matter for compliance after three weeks.

¶28

___________________________ (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, HACJ)

¶29

_______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J )

¶30

Dated: 21-09-2012.

¶31

tnb

¶32

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶33

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶34

W.A.NO.1187 OF 2012

¶35

(PER HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶36

DATED: 21^st SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶37

TNB

D.Prabhakar Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Prabhakar Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Garigipati Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Vs Sri T.Chandrasekhara Naidu

Katakam Rajeshwar Vs The State Bank of India

Bramha Devi Mastanamma Vs District Collector

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Vs K.V. Sharmila , Venkata Sharmila

Maruthi Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Government of India

REliance Infratel Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision