Dismissed

Smt. Potla Nagamani v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Telangana HC13 Aug 2021WP/18189/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged dispossession of her land alleging violation of natural justice and fundamental rights. The court found that the matter involved an inter-se civil dispute pending in civil litigation. Consequently, respondent authorities were not actively interfering, leading the court to dismiss the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available in law.

Smt. Potla Nagamani Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1818I OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Potla Nagamani, W/o- Late Potla John Robert, Aged about 36 years, Orcc: Agriculturisl, Rt/o. H.No.5-78t1, Gangatam Village-, Sathupally li4andal, Khammam District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

2 The Special Tribunal, Rep. by its District Collector and Member, Khammam District.

¶12

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalluru Division, Khammam District. 4 The Tahsildar, Sathupally, Khammam District. The Station House Officer, Sathupally, Khammam District.

¶13

Namburi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Kahtha Rao, aged about 52 years, Occ, Business, Rl/o. Borra Badralah Rice Mill Street of-Vr/yra Village Lnd tr,4andal, Khammam District.

¶14

Namburi Srinivas Rao, S/o. Kantha Rao, aged about 50 years, Occ, Business, Wyra Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶15

B. Namburi Ramalingeswara Rao, S/o. Kantha Rao, aged about 48 years, Occ, Business, Wyra Village and lvlandal,Khammam Distiict.

¶16

,.,RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or writ particularly one in the nature of a Writ of N4andamus declarinq the action oi 4th and 5th respondent authorities !n trying to dispossess the petitioner from her land in sy.No.131/1/5711 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-29 gts, situated at Bethupally Gangaram Village, Sathupally lvlandal, Khammam District at the behest of respondent No.6 to g without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, as being illegal arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and violation of the Petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14, 2 .1 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly, direct the Respondents No.4 and 5 not lo dispossess or in any manner interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner land.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

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.4 and 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from her land in sy.No.131/1/5711 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-29 gts, situated at Bethupally Gangaram Village, Sathupally lr,4andal, Khammam District, without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SWAROOP OORILLA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8: SRI T.V. RAMESH

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN ITAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.18189 of 2O2L

¶26

QRPER:

¶27

Heard Sri Sr.r,aroop Oorilla, learned counsel fc,r the petitioner, lcarrncd Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for resoondents I to 4, lcarned Assistant Government Pleader for Home lor respondent no.S anrl Sri^'l'V Ran'rcsh icarrned counsel for respondents 6 to 8

¶28

Thrs u-rit petiuon is filed seeking the follo,,virrg rclicf:

¶29

. .. ...to pass an order or orders or r.wit particularl., one in the nature ol a Writ of Mandan.rus declaring tlle action of 4th and 5th respondent authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioner from her land ir Sy No 131/1/57/l admeasuring to an extent of Ac 029 gts situated at E,ethupally Gangaranr Village Sathupaily Mandal Khammam District at the bef est of respondent No 6 to 8 without issuing any notice and without following rlue process of law as being illegal arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and violation of the Petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14 2l and 300.4 of the Constitution oflndia and consequently direct the Respondents No 4 and 5 not to dispossess or in any manner interfere with the pea:eful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner land and to pass ..........."

¶30

This writ petition is filed contending that p:titioner is owner ol Ac.0.29 guntas of land in survey No. 131 I 1 la;7 I l, Bethupally Gangaram viilage, Sathupally mandal, Khammam dis._rict. petitioner allc'ges Lhat respondent aLlthorities are trying to drsp ossess him with aclivc' connivance of respondents 6 to 8 and prays ,o issue writ oj' mandamus declaring the action of respondents Tahsildar and Station House Officer -respondents 4 and 5 herein in trying :o dispossess the petitioner at the behest of respondents 6 to 8 withcut following due process of 1aw as i1legal, arbitrary and unconstitutionat.

¶31

When the matter is taken up for consi<leration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents 1 to 4 informed the Court that there is inter-se dispute betw,:en the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 and respondent authorities a;.e not interfering with the possession and ownership of the petitioner on the subject 1and. Lcarned Assistant Government Pleader for _ Hor:e representing

¶32

¶33

respondent no,s submitted that on a complaint made against the petitioner, on 9 .2.2027 a GD entry was made and in the proce ss o[ investigation into the complaint, field visit was made but having realised^,.. that there is interse civil dispute, police did not register a crime and lhat police are not interlering in the matter. Learned counsel representing respondents 6 to 8 also submitted that there is interse dispute betr,r'eer-t petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 and civil litigation is pending.

¶34

Having regard to above submissions, the allegation of petitioner that respondent authorities are interfering in the matter is not valid and Court is not inciined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available in 1aw. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶35

shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSrsrANr REt[]9,R ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶37

¶38

To,

¶39

'1. One CC to Sri^{Swaroop Oorilla' Advocate-[OPUC]}

¶40

i*o CC"lo GP for^{Revenue,HignCourt f6r the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶41

Two CCs to GP for^{Home, High courtfor the state of Telangana at Hyderabad} IOUTI

¶42

b"n-" CC to Sri^{T,V. Ramesh, AdvocateIOPUC]} 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare^CoPY

CHR. (J

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812021

ORDER

W.P.No.18189 ot 2021

1d e s T4 r(.
(
li
J)) 03 SEP202t ,+ I !l
*
'l c'.(,c'

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

o-<br>o

Smt. Potla Nagamani v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Potla Nagamani 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

J.Ananth Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 17 others

Syyed Faisuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mohd Abid Hussain Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Guguloth Krishna and another Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Martha Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana

M. Srinivasa Reddy Vs The State of Telangana