Disposed

Smt. G. Laxmi v. The State of Telangana And 7 Others

Telangana HC7 Jul 2020WP/9669/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition and application under Section 151 CPC, the petitioner challenged the laying of a BT road alleging encroachment on her land. The High Court held that a joint survey must be conducted to ascertain boundaries. If encroachment is found, authorities must stop work until land is acquired via due process, and costs may be recovered from the petitioner if her claim was unfounded.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a joint survey of the petitioner's land to fix boundaries and ascertain encroachment; directed cessation of road work upon finding encroachment until land acquis

Smt. G. Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana And 7 Others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9669 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. G. Laxmi, W/o. Raja Narsaiah, Aged about. 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-34, [t4ukshanpet, Ellanthakunta Village and It/andal, Rajanna - Sircilla District, Ertswhile Karimnagar District.

¶8

.,,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

3 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

4 The District Collector, Ralanna - Sircilla District.

¶14

E The Tahsildhar, EllanthakuntaMandal, Ellanthakunta, Rajanna - Sircilla District.

¶15

6 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Region, Karimnagar.

¶16

7 The District Panchayat Raj Engineer, Rajanna - Siricilla District.

¶17

I The Gram Panchayat, Ellanthakunta Village, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Ellanthakunta, Rajanna-Sircilla District

¶18

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of tr/andamus, directing the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to not to lay the road in land admeasuring Ac.02-03 gts of the Petitioner situated in Sy.No.230/3/ I of Ellanthakunta Village and [Vlandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Erstwhile Karimnagar District without following due process of law in the interest of justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

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 direct the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to maintain the status quo over the land of the Petitioner admeasuring Ac.02-03 gts situated in Sy.No.230/311 of ol Ellanthakunta Village and l,4andal, Rajanna-Sircilla District. Erstwhile Karimnagar District in the interest of^justice.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (TG) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3, 6 & 7: SMT. G. JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 8: SRl. G. NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

Tl{E HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUl.lAR

¶25

wRIT PETITION No.9669 of 2020

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The presernt writ petition is flled under Article .126 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Mar:clamus directing respondents tlos.6 and 7 not to lay the road in the land )f the petitioner admeasuring 1ics.02.03 guntas situated in Survey No.230/3/1 of Ellanthakunta Village and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla t)iitrjct, Erstwhile Karimnagar District, without following due process of law.

¶28

The pr:sent writ petition is taken up for hearing today, i.e. 07,07 .2020, th rough Video Conferencing.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitionr:r', the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, the learned Governnent Pleader for Revenue and Sri G.Narender Reddy, the learned :;landing counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of and admeasuring Acs.2.03 guntas in Survey No.230i3/1 situated at El anthakunta Village and Mandal, as is evldent from the pattadar pass book issued by the Government of Telan,l3na with Khata No.757. It is t;laimed by the petitioner that the responjent authorities, while seeking to lay a BT Road from Gollapally to Jarganrreddypally, Chintha kunta^p,r lly, Arepally, MPP Ellanthakunta, have e:rrtered into the petitioner's lard for the purpose of laying the said roird. Hence, the petitioner is corstrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶31

¶32

Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has forwarded to this Court by e-mail the written instructions dated 01.07.2020 under the signature of respondent No.7 authority. By the said written instructions, it is stated that the authorities have taken up work along the existing road as per revenue naksha without any encroachment of private land which is also ratified by the Tahsildar of Ellanthakunta Mandal. By the said written instructions, it is further stated that the work relating to reinforcement of existing revenue naksha road was entrusted to one Sri.S.Jogindar Singh, contractor on tender basis for a total length of 5.275 kilometres. By the said written instructions, it is also stated that while the land of the petitioner is abutting the existing road, but as per site condition the existing road which is being utilized by the public since 40 years as per "Revenue Naksha Road" is at the outer boundary of the petitioner's land, no land of the petitioner is being encroached for the purpose of laying oF the road. By the said written instructions, it is further stated that the petitioner is trying to mislead the Court under the pretext of encroachment by the department and the petitioner is causing disturbance and delaying the laying of the road.

¶33

Having regard to the submission made as above, the pattadar pass book issued by the State Government to the petitioner, admittedly, shows the petitioner as the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.2.03 guntas in Survey N0.230/3/l of Ellanthakunta village. Though it is being claimed by the authorities that no part of the petitioner's land is being encroached for the purpose of laying of the BT road the said road is being laid only on the existing road in existence over 40 years as per revenue naksha, the written instructions as forwarded to this Court would indicate that one side boundary of the petitioner's land is abutting the /,,/"

¶34

¶35

existing road as shown in the revenue naksha on which the authorities have now taken up the work relating to BT road.

¶36

Since, it is being claimed by the petitioner that the resl)ondentsⁱⁿ the guise of laf ing the BT road over the existing revenue n:ksira road, are encroaching in':c her land and depriving possession over her land to the extent of Ac. 2.03 Gts in Sy.No. 23013lI ot Ellanthakun:a village, the simple thing that the authorities could have done is to :oncluct a^joint survey of the f etitioner's land to dispel the^petitioner's apprehension as to no part of her and being taken away for the purpose of lerf ing of BT road, However, no s;uch action seems to have been taken, v/hich forced the petitioner to aF)proach this cout.

¶37

B. Thus, in the given circumstances, this Court is of^llle view that, in order to dispel the apprehension of the petitioner that no r)at of her land having been errcroached or being taken away for the^purp,ose of laying BT road without clue process of law, the 2nd respondent au:horlry is to be directed to depute the concerned authorities to take up^joint survey of the land of the p€titioner in Survey No.230/3/I of Ellanthakrnta village, to ensure that th3 petitioner is in possession of land admeasuring Acs.2.03 guntas by fixing the boundaries and no part of the land of -he ietitioner is being encroached for the purpose of laying of BT road, v/hereat, the 4tr' respondent authority shall be present as it is being claimed that it is said authority who has ratified the work belng undertaken as^per'-he existing Revenue Naksha Road. Having regard to the fact that the respondent authority is^p roceeding with the work of laying BT road, the 2nd respondent aul:hority shall take steps by issuing necessary instructions to all the concerned to have the joint survey completed within two (2) weeks from th(r date of receipt of a copy of this order. In :he.1oint survey

¶38

¶39

so conducted, if it^{is found that any part of petitioner land being} encroached, the^{respondentauthorities shall not proceed further with the} workonthepetitionerlanduntilandunlesstheauthoritiestakeStepsto acquire the said land^{of the petitionerby followingdue process of law'} Similarly,onsuchsurveyandfixationofboundaries,ifitisfoundthatany of the boundary of^{the landbeing claimedby the petitioner in Sy No'} 23Ol3lI is not actually^{abuttingthe road or the said land is located far} from the existing road^{wherethe work relatingto laying of BT road is} beingproceededwith,therespondentauthorityshallbeentitledto recover the cost of survey^{from the petitioner'}

¶40

Subject to the above^{direction,the Writ Petitionis disposed of'} Pending miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, shall stand closed' No order as to} costs

¶41

SD/- M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGIS R

¶42

,TRUE COPY//

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶46

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶47

The District Collector, Rajanna - Sircilla District.

¶48

The Tahsildhar, EllanthakuntaMandal, Ellanthakunta, Rajanna - Sircilla District.

¶49

The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Region, Karimnagar.

¶50

The District Panchayat Raj Engineer, Rajanna - Siricilla District.

¶51

B. The Gram Panchayat, Ellanthakunta Village, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Ellanthakunta, Rajanna-Sircilla District

¶52

One CC to Sri. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶53

One CC to Smt. G. Jyothi Kiran, Advocate (OPUC)

¶54

1 1. One CC to Sri. G. Narender Reddy, SC for Gram Panchayat (OPUC)

¶55

12.Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶56

1 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶57

1 4. Two CD Copies. PM \w

HIGH COURT

DATED:071071',2A20

ORDER

WP.No.9669 of 2020

i 1- .,,i]
,,J tl
,-,
iii
I $:
,:cv <br>J l/
--iu"

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT CC'STS.

¶65

o^,
"N-^2s

Smt. G. Laxmi v. The State of Telangana And 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G. Laxmi v. The State of Telangana And 7 Others

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

Polagani Venkaiah and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Manda Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Aurad Ashok , Neeradi Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

G.Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mr. M.A. Nayeem Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Billa Abhishek and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others