Disposed

Yapachettu Balaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Aug 2020WP/10931/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an auction notification for temple land. The court held that if the petitioner pays the revised lease amount of Rs.6,000 per acre, he can continue cultivation subject to completing formalities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit lease amount of Rs.6,000 per acre per annum to be allowed to cultivate land.

Yapachettu Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IVONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 10931 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Yapachettu Balaiah, S/o. Yapachettu Naraslmha, Aged 40 years, Occ. Agrl., Rio. H.No.2-5511, P angal Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Endowments, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, lVlahabubnagar 3. Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Devasthanam, Rep. by the- Executive Officer/l\4andal-in-charge, Panagal Village and lVandal, Wanapiarthy District.

¶11

,.,RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petitron under Article 226 of ih|e Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ of lt/andamus or any other appropriate writ declaring auction notification No.0412020, dt.l4-07-2020 issued by respondent No.3 for auction lease hold rights in respect of Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Devasthanam land in Sy.No.647 to an extent of 11 acres 17 guntas during subsistence of lease period infavour of the petitioner from July, 2020 to May,2022 as illegal, without authority of law, against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and unconstitutiona I and consequenfly direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land ln Sy.No.647 to an extent of 1 1 acres 17 gts of land of Panagal village and fMandal during the subsistence of lease period.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶14

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the auction notification No.04/2020, dt.14-07-2020 issued by the respondent No.3 by continuing the lease hold rights of petitioner for the period July, 2o2o to lrAay, 2022 inrespect of sri Ramalingeshwara swamy Devasthanam land in sy.No.647 to an extent of^'1 1 acres^'1 7 guntas of pangal village and lvandal, wanaparthy District, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RAMA KRISHNA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Gp FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI JAGAN MOHAN REDDy KOTHA,

¶18

S.C. FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 1O931 of 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the auction notification dated L4.07.2020 issued by the 3'o^{respondentfor} auction of leasehold rights in respect of Sri Ramalingeshwara^Swamy Devasthanam land in Survey No. 647 in an extent of Acs.lt.l7^guntas of Panagal Village and Mandal, during^{subsistenceol'leaseperiod in} favour of the petitioner from July, 2020 to^{May,2022, as illegal,}

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioner as, well as^learned Standing Counsel for the 3'd respondent Devasthanam.

¶25

In this case, the petitioner^questions the decision taken^{by the} Commissioner to re-auction the^property which^{was clriginallywonby} him in public auction. It is his case that^{re-auction decision was taken} without there being any valid reason, only on^{account of the} representation made by some of^{the villagers that they did not have} an opportunity to^participate in the^{auctionproceedingsand such} reasoning is unsustainable.

¶26

On the other hand, the^{learned Standing Counselasserts that} the very conducting^{of auction and declarationof the,.petitioner as the} highest bidder is^{subjectto the acceptanceof approval by thc} i Commissioner^{under the Rules.}

¶27

Considering the^{fact that for the first time, the land is soughtto} be auctioned to^{bring it for cultivation, and also considering the fact} that the^{petitioner's lease amount,though inadequate, was accepted,} the matter was^{adjournedfor filing a counter'}

¶28

ThelearnedStandingCounsel,afterlocalenquiry,had submitted that^{the land would fetch at least Rs,7,000+ per annumper} acre, whereas^{the petitioner had quotedvery low amount, and that}

¶29

¶30

was ye[ another reason for the Commissioner to come to the decision that the land is to be re-auctioned.

¶31

Now, the petitioner has come forward to pay rease amount of Rs'6,000/- per acre per annum, which is acceptable to Respondents 2 and 3 and in those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner depositing the rease amount in terms of the auction notice at Rs.6,000/- per acre per annum, he be allowed to cultivate the rand, derivery of which, it is asserted, has already been affected and agricultural operations have already been commenced. The entire formalities be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, No costs.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shail stand crosed.

¶33

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSIST REGISTRAR ,)

//TRUE COPY/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary, Department of Endowments, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶38

The Assistant commissioner, Endowments Department, lvahabubnaqar 3. The Executive Officer/tVandal-in-charge, .^'Sri Ramalingeiniia Swamy .^{Devasthanam,pqlagal Viilage and tvandll,wanaparthy} oiJtriCt.^- 4. One CC to Sri 5, Rlra Krisiina, Advocate [OpUCi 5. Two CCs to GP for Endowmerts, High Couit f^or th'e State of Telangana. tOUTI 6. one cc to sri Jagan Mohan Reddy i(otha, s.c. forEndor"nt, idFuCi^{- -} ' 7. Two CD Copies.

IVP

rN*-"\

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/0812020

ORDER

WP.No.10931 of 2020

{ HE 5
J ,, (
v
o 21 AUGzUo
,
t t
SPATCH

¶46

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶47

::rl '
f cs1tas
)rr+\a"x-'-

Yapachettu Balaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yapachettu Balaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jonna Raji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kanchu Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

A.Ranga Reddy Vs the State of Tg

Thungam Venkaiah and 2 Others Vs the State of Telanagana and 6 Others

Nanna Umadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Ganta Sunith Reddy Vs The State of Telangana