Dismissed

Mohammed Ahmed Ali v. State of Tg,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Hyd,and 8

Telangana HC3 Jun 2021WP(PIL)/150/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an amendment petition seeking to substitute the term 'gramakantam' with 'public property' in a PIL concerning land encroachment. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the land was public property and dismissed the applications without costs.

What did the court decide?

Applications for amendment of pleadings and appointment of commissioner were dismissed without costs.

Mohammed Ahmed Ali Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat .turisaictiony' ^'

¶3

TTIURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONi

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

,TJffil1TJ:,iflJ::NTIiJill

¶6

l.A.No.1 of 2021 IN/AND

¶7

W.P.(PI L.No.1 50of 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

IVohammed Ahmed Ali. S, s o c i a r A ct i ;i si, i7;''"H i[ ;]&, Y,:iilm%l H,iil?i,[, fJ;,,,fl :fl ,.: B:XL jg.rfr"District.rs, Occ

District.rs, Occ

..,PETITIONER

AND

1 f,al The Q9o.artn1gnt, State of Telanoana. Represented^{S6cretariat'.Hyd;;;b;d'.} by the^'lriv principal Secretary, panchayath^{II 'vrvur </sup>}

¶14

2 Pepartment lhe State of Telanoana.^Secreiariai, Repreiented^Hyberabad. by^{'r '} the^{v i} principal Secretary, Revenue^{iriv'Hu' !} 3 rne Urstnct^panchavath Officer. Sangareddy District, Sangareddy. T.S. 4 The Divisionat^panchayath oricei. 2Erreeir'nro riir';i"'. 6Gti,ir dangareoov

¶15

5 The Director Town & Country planning, Hyderabad, having the office at # 640, QOn:.rrt^{Building,A.C., Guirds,r_arOikafur.ny-Jelaoii T S}

¶16

6 I!:^{ygl"l Grampanchayarh Kotrir Viilage & Ir/5ndat.DistriciSangareddy.} F<epresented by its Executive officer.

¶17

7 Smt. Arshra Kalerem, Sarpanch of [,4ajor Grampanchayath, Kohir Village & IVIandal, District Sangareddy.

¶18

8 Sri. Mohammed Abdul Raheem, S/o. Mohammed Abdul Salam, aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.8-96/ 1, Gadhi Street, Kohir Villa[e & Ir4andai, Sangareddy District.

¶19

Sri. It/ohammed Abdul Faheem, S/o. It4ohammed Abdul Salam, aged aboul2T years, Occ: B_usiness, R/o. H.No.8-96/1 , Gadhi Street, Kohir Viitade & Mandat, Sangareddy District'

¶20

...RES'.NDENTS

¶21

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 pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, declaring that the inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 6 in not taking any action for protection of the government land (gramakantam land) measuring 6 guntas situated to the eastern side of the Road leading from Kohir to Kaveli Village, within the limits of Kohir Grampanchayath & l\r1andel, District Sangareddy even after recerpt of several representation^including the representation filed by the Petitioner dated^{12-09-2016,is illegal,arbitrary,} politically motivated, unjust, unfair, malicious and amounts to^giving a long^{rope ln} the hands of the land^grabbers to^grab the^{public properties and violative of Articles} 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of lndia^{and may be pleased to directthe} Respondents to demolish the illegal^{construction made by the RespondentsNo'8 &} I in the government land^{(gramakantamsubject land) measuring6 guntas situated} to the eastern side of the Road leading^{from Kohir to Kaveli Village, withinthe limits} of Kohir Grampanchayath & Mandal,^{District Sangareddyby removing the}

¶22

encroachment^{on the saidlandwhich vests in the 6th Respondentand to use the} said land^{for the benefit of the local residents'}

¶23

ffi151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleasedto direct} the Respondents^{to stop the constructiontaken up by the Respondents No B & Iin} the^{government land (gramakantam subiect land) measuring6 guntas situatedto} theeasternsideoftheRoadleadingfromKohirtoKaveliVillage,withinthelimitsof Kohir Grampanchayath^{Mandal,District Sangareddy underthe guise of making the} construction^{in the land coveredby Sy No'769of Kohir Village& Mandal' District} Sangareddy,^{during the pendency of the PIL Petition'}

¶24

lA NO:^'t oF²⁰²¹

¶25

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleased to amend} the pleadings i.e.^{affidavit and petitionfiled in supportof W'P'(PlL) No 150 of 2016'} bySubStitutingtheword,.gramakantam,.inparaNo.4(ii)lineNo.2,ParaNo.4(iii)line No.3, Para No.4(iv)^{line No.5, Para No.4(vii)line No 3, Para No 4(viii) line No'4'} ParaNo.4(xi)lineNo.4,ParaNo'4(xiv)lineNo.5,ParaNo.4(xvii)lineNo.3,Para No.5(a) tine No.3, Para^{No.5(d) line No.3, Para No.5(e) line No.4, Para No.13line} No.5 & .1 5, Para No.14 line No.4 and wherever the said term occurs, with the words "pu blic p ro pe rty".

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶27

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} appoint an Advocate as Commissioner to note^{down the physical featuresof the} subject public property situated at eastern side of the road leading^{fromKohir to} Kaveli Village, Kohir Village & Mandal, Sangareddy District by^getting it surveyed^B5 demarcated with the help of Joint Director Survey Settlement Land Records or any other competent Authority so as to know whether any public property is encroached by unofficial Respondents No.8 & 9, which exercise will bring the real truth before this Hon'ble Court to adjudicate the matter in question.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MD. AJMAL AHMED

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5:

¶30

GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY,

¶33

SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: M/s. DANAM RENUKA

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: SRI J.C. FRANCIS

¶36

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶37

Irern No. I5

¶38

THE H ON 'BLBTHE FJUSTI CE KOHLI AND HON'BLE SRI STICE B. YSEN REDDY

¶39

I.A.No.I of 2021 I N/ANT) tt . Pt^p t Lifo I -s--O or : O r o

¶40

COMM ON ORD ER : (Per the Hon'ble the ChicfJustice Hima Kohti)

¶41

I. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel tbr the petitioner had been accommodated to enable hirn to examine the legal position relating to the status of ,,gramakantam,, landand its utility, in the light of the prayer made in the present petition filed as a pIL, staring inter alia that action be taken against the Govemment authorities for not protecting the Government land described as,,gramakantam land, situated on the eastern side of the road leading from Kohir to Kaveri Village, Sangareddy District, after several representations made by the petitioner.

¶42

Instead of examining the matter in the correct perspective, a misconceived application, registered as I.A.No.l of 2O2l ,, has been fi led by the petitioner seeking leave to amend the writ petition and praving intcr alia that wherever the word ',gramakantam,' has been r,rsed in the writ petition, the same may be perrritted to be substituted by the phrase "public propert.v".

¶43

ll/.P(PIL).No. I 50 of 201 6

¶44

Page I of 2

¶45

3 . On being^{informed that the word" gramakantam"rs} interchangeable^{with "abadi land'andcannotbe treated as public} propefly,^{leamed counsel feigns ignorance' We see no reason to} entertain^{the present petition'when leamed counsel for the petitioner} is not^{even in a positionto demonstate that the subject land is public} propefty.

¶46

as also I.A.No.l^{of 202 I are disn.rissed} 4 The present Petition a)ong rvith^{the pending applications,if any'}

¶47

Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT EGIST

¶48

,TRUE COPY// SECTIO FFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

One CC to Sri Md. Aimal Ahmed,^Advocate IOPUCI

¶51

Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj &^{Rural Development,HighCourt for the} State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶52

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the^{State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

Ohe CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for Gram Panchayat [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Danam Renuka, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri J.C. Francis, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CD Copies CHR4I*

¶55

W. P (PI L).No. I 5 0 of 20 1 6

Page 2 of 2

HIGH^COURT

DATED:03t0612021

COMMON^ORDER

l.A.No.1^{of 2021}

lHE t
3, ,5 JUit202t
)F"q

¶62

IN/AND

¶63

W.P.(PlL.No.150^{of 201 6}

¶64

DISMISSING^{THE l.A'No'1 of 2021AND W'P'(P|L)} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶65

.a'$

Mohammed Ahmed Ali v. State of Tg,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Hyd,and 8

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ahmed Ali v. State of Tg,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Hyd,and 8

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

Y. Brahmanandam Vs Y. Padmavathi

Bandi Naresh and 9 Others Vs Aggidi Srinivas and 7 Others

B.Mallesh Vs Aggidi Srinivas

Burra Soundarya Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

The State of Telangana Vs P.Bixapathi Rao

News item published in Deccan Chronicle Vs The State of Telangana