Dismissed

The President v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Mar 2018WP/34919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging revenue orders recording land as patta belonged to a private family. Court directed Gram Panchayat which denied weekly bazaar held on land. Court held petition no longer subsisting and dismissed writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order of maintenance of status quo dated 18.10.2016 vacated; no order as to costs; petitioners to prosecute remedies in appropriate proceedings.

The President Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34919 OF 2016

¶3

DATED :12.03.2018

¶4

Between : The President, Human Rights Forum, Medak District Unit, Telangana State Through T.Samuel S/o.Venkaiah, Aged about 40 yrs, R/o.Perur, Medak District, Telangana State & others.

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Telangana, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad Rep., by Principal Secretary & others. .. Respondents

¶8

This court made the following :

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.34919 OF 2016

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 5, Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent and learned Standing counsel for the 7^th respondent. With their consent the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶14

The 1^st petitioner is Secretary and 2^nd petitioner is the General Secretary of Human Rights Forum, Medak District. Petitioners 3 and 4 are residents of Haveli Ghanpur village, Medak District. According to petitioners the land to an extent of Ac.1-18 guntas in Sy.No.484/1 has been used for decades by the villagers to conduct weekly markets (Angadi), whereas, the revenue authorities erroneously recorded this extent of land as patta land of 6^th respondent. Against the entries made by the Tahsildar in revenue records, representations were made before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Medak on 07.06.2014, 23.06.2014 and 07.10.2014. The RDO, enquired into the matter and by his order dated 11.11.2014 affirmed the decision of Tahsildar in reflecting the land claimed by the petitioners as patta land belonging to the family of 6^th respondent. Aggrieved thereby 1^st and 2^nd petitioners preferred revision before the Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy. The Joint Collector, by his order dated 11.08.2016 affirmed the decision of RDO and rejected the revision. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed.

¶15

¶16

This Court by order dated 18.10.2016 while ordering notice before admission directed maintenance of status quo, with regard to possession, construction and change of topography in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas described as Khali Jaga and Ac.1-18 guntas described as Angadi Bazar in Khasra Pahani, situated in Sy.No.484 of Haveli Ghanpur .

¶17

Praying to vacate the said interim order, I.A.No.01 of 2017 (WVMP.No.514 of 2017) is filed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that though in the prayer petitioners have also stated that land to an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas does not belong to the 6^th respondent the claim of the petitioners is only with reference to Ac.1-18 guntas where, according to petitioners, weekly bazaar is conducted from time immemorial. This statement of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted and taken on record.

¶19

The only issue for consideration is whether, weekly bazaar is conducted in the subject land from time immemorial and therefore, the unofficial respondents cannot claim as owners and pattedars of the subject land, and reflection of status of the property as patta land in the revenue record as affirmed by the RDO and Joint Collector is erroneous?

¶20

After hearing learned counsels extensively, the Court directed the Gram Panchayat to inform the Court whether Angadi is conducted in subject land.

¶21

The Panchayat Secretary, Haveli Ghanpur Village, filed counter affidavit deposed on 04.02.2018. There is categorical denial by the Gram Panchayat on conducting of weekly bazaar in

¶22

¶23

the land of 6^th respondent. It is further asserted that on every Tuesday the farmers sell their vegetables and other provisions sitting on the Gram Panchayat road margin abutting land of 6^th respondent in Sy.No.484. It is further averred that Gram Panchayat never collected any fee from the vegetable vendors.

¶24

Having regard to this assertion of Gram Panchayat, and in view of the orders of revenue authorities, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the plea raised by the petitioners is no more subsisting and seeks leave of the Court to prosecute their remedies as available in law against the claim of 6^th respondent about the ownership of subject land in Sy.No.484 in appropriate proceedings.

¶25

Recording the said submission and leaving it open to petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law, on the issue of title and ownership of 6^th respondent, on land in Sy.No.484 of Haveli Ghanpur, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order granted on 18.10.2016 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶27

shall stand closed.

¶28

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶29

12^th March, 2018 Rds

The President v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President v. The State of Telangana

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

Md. Riazuddin Vs Smt.Challa Nirmala

G. Pyari, Kadapa Dist. Vs Anil Chandra Punetha, I.a.S., Hyd and 6 Others

Gandam Kumaraswamy Vs Smt. Thurapati Yellamma

Siliveru Gyaneshwar Giri Social Service Society, Vs The State of Telangana

Venkata Ramana Social Service Society, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Srinivasa Poultry Farm, Vs The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary