Allowed

Sri. Manda Venkateswara Rao, v. The Tahasildar

Telangana HC18 Nov 2013WP/24513/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the respondents' attempt to interfere with the petitioners' possession of government land. The court observed that the land is treated as Reserve Forest and restrained Revenue officials from interfering, directing private parties to seek civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

Restraining respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with petitioners' possession; petitioners entitled to civil suit for private respondents. Petition allowed in part.

Sri. Manda Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Tahasildar — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.24513 of 2013

¶3

Date : 18-11-2013

¶4

Between: Manda Venkateswara Rao and others .. Petitioners

¶5

And

¶6

The Tahsildar, Burghamphad Mandal, Burghamphad, Khammam District and others .. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for petitioners : Sri P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader

¶8

for Revenue

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of property admeasuring Ac.14-11 guntas in Sy.No.262 of Sarapaka village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

The petitioners are the sons of Manda Patachata. It is their pleaded case that their father had occupied Government land in the year 1961 and since then he had been in possession by cultivating the same for eking out his livelihood. In support of their plea, the petitioners filed copies of B-Memoranda. When the officials of the Forest Department sought to interfere with their possession, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.18977/2011. In WPMP No.22924/2011 filed in the said Writ Petition, this Court by order dated 7-7-2011 granted interim direction not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land except by following due process of law. The petitioners further pleaded that recently their father died and that the private respondents i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 7, with the help of

¶13

respondent Nos.1 and 2, have been trying to dispossess them from the above mentioned land.

¶14

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area), on instructions, submitted that the land in question is a part of Reserve Forest and that as the petitioners’ father was not a Scheduled Tribe, his request for conferring right over the same was rejected. He has further submitted that the petitioners are not in possession of the land as of now.

¶15

From a perusal of the proceedings in Rc.No.1559/2012, dated 9-7-2012, whereunder respondent No.1 has submitted a report to respondent No.3, it is evident that as per the report of the Village Revenue Officer, Sarapaka and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Burghampahad, the joint inspection conducted by the Revenue and the Forest officials in Sy.No.262 admeasuring Ac.14-00 guntas, revealed that the said land is Reserve Forest land and that the petitioners’ father was in possession of the same since 1964. Thus, on respondent No.1’s own showing, the land in question is a part of Reserve Forest and not a part of the Revenue land. Though the petitioners disputed that the land belongs to the Forest Department, as the said dispute is subject matter of W.P.No.18977/2011, it is not appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on this aspect. However, for the present, it will suffice to note that as according to respondent

¶16

No.1 the subject land is a Reserve Forest, neither he nor any other Revenue officials have jurisdiction to meddle with the same. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are restrained from interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the land admeasuring Ac.14-11 guntas in Sy.No.262 of Sarapaka village, Burghampahad Mandal, Khammam District.

¶17

With regard to respondent Nos.4 to 7, if they are trying to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and right to enjoy the property in question, the petitioners are entitled to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit against the said respondents.

¶18

Subject to the direction and the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

¶19

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.30162/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶21

Date : 18-11-2013 AM

Sri. Manda Venkateswara Rao, v. The Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manda Venkateswara Rao, v. The Tahasildar

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

Smt. Zaheera Begum Vs The State Government of A.P.

K. Venkat Rao Vs The Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Sri J.L.Narasimham, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Pathi Prakasam.S/o Kalaiah, Vs The Government of A.P.

Chintam Reddi Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh