Disposed

Ayaz Ahmed v. The District Collector

Telangana HC9 Dec 2022WP/2352/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the High Court's order. The petitioner, in possession of agricultural land, alleged illegal interference by revenue officials without issuing notice or hearing, violating constitutional rights. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing respondents not to interfere with possession unless due process including notice and hearing was followed. No order on costs.

What did the court decide?

Redirected respondents not to interfere with petitioner's possession without issuing notice and hearing the petitioner first.

Ayaz Ahmed Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2352 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ayaz Ahmed, S/o. Late Shail Mohammed, Aged about 39^years, R/o.8-2-350/5/A, Road No.3, Banjara Hills,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakadikapool, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Tahsildar, Shamsabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distract.

¶13

? The Village Revenue Officer, Peddaihopurra Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the land admeasuring 6-24 gt. in Survey No. 105/8, 1 15/tu8 and 1 16/8 of Pedda Toopra Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., without any manner of rights and without following due^process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural^justice and rights guaranteed under Art. 300-A of constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment^{qf petitioner} over the subject land.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009^(WPMP. NO:29 I^{OF 2009)}

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstaniesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto direct} the respondents not to interfere with^{possessionand enjoymentof petitioner over} the land admeasuring 6-24^{gt in} Survey^{No. 105/8,'1 15/A,/Band 1 16/8 of Pedda} Toopra Village, Shamshabad Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy Dist., pending disposalof} main Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Kambhampati^{Ramesh Babu}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP for Revenue}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^SRI IUSTICE^K.SARATH

¶22

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.2352 of 2009}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition is^{fited for the following reliel}

¶25

o. ...to issue tttit order or direction more particularly one in tLLe nature^{of Writ of Mandamus by declaringthe} action of the^{respondents ininterfeingwith the} possession and- enjoyment of^{petitioner ouer the land} admeasuing 6-24^{Gts. in Sy.Nos.1O5/B, 115/A/B and} 116/8 of Pedda^{Toopra Village, ShamshabadMandal,} Ranga Reddg Di.strict^{withoutanA mannerof ight and} u,tithout following^{due processof lau-t, as illegal, arbitrary} and uiolatiue of^{pinciples of natural justice'.."}

¶26

Heard the Learned Counsel^{for the petitionerand} Learned Government Pleader^{for Revenue appearing for the} respondents.

¶27

Learned Counsel for^{the petitionersubmits that he is} in continuous^{possession and enjoyment of the land} admeasuring 6-24^{Gts. in Sy.Nos. 105/8, 115/A/B and} t1,6/B of Pedda Toopra^{Vi1lage, Shamshabad Mandal,} tOO**" Reddy District and raised mango garden in the said

¶28

¶29

land, which also started yielding. The neighboring owners tried to encroach into the land of the petitioner land by removing barbed wire fencing but they tailed in their attempts. The petitioner further erected iron poles with concrete foundation and attached with sheets. Later, the neighbors colluded with the respondent Nos.2 ald 3 and the officials from the office of respondent No.2 visited petitioner's land on 28.OI.2OO7 and removed some of the boards erected for fencing on the ground that the petitioner has erected the same without permission.

¶30

At the time of admission, this Court has granted interim Orders on 23.04.2009 and noticed that no notice was issued to the petitioner, who is in possession of the land, as contemplated under RuIe_3 of the A.p. Assigned Land (Prohibition and Transfers) Rules, 1977. Even after lapse of more than twelve years, the respondents did not choose to file counter in this matter.

¶31

I I

¶32

-7

¶33

In view the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, without following the due process of law. If they want to do so, the respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, pass appropriate orders thereon. There shall no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -r //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakadikapool, Hyderabad.

¶38

The Tahsildar, Shamsabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

The Village Revenue Officer, Peddathopurra Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶40

One CC to Sri. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, Advocate IOPUC]

¶41

Two CCs to GP for Revenue ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶42

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:09 t1212022

ORDER

31ATE o
r,
Nts o
t t '$N ,r,!,
( -x,
t ors r,{

¶50

WP.No.2352 of 2009

¶51

DISPOSIN(; THE WRIT PETITION

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶53

qqt)

¶54

*[l,t='

Ayaz Ahmed v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayaz Ahmed v. The District Collector

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

Mohd. Zafarullaha Khan Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Krishna Enterprises and another Vs The Southern Power Distribution company of Telangana Ltd. and 8 others

Shaik Shawokat Vs The District Collector

Yeluguri Nagendra Prasad Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and 4 Others

Sri M. Shankar Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. Thirumala Parboiled Rice and Oil Mill, Vs Andhra Pradesh, Electricity Regulatory Commission