Allowed

Divi Satya Sayee Babu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Aug 2022WP/2569/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a writ petition challenging respondents' attempt to dispossess the petitioner of land in Khanapur Village. The court affirmed the interim order made earlier, converting it into an absolute order restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession, subject to adhering to statutory procedures for acquisition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 06.02.2020 restraining interference with the petitioner's land is made absolute.

Divi Satya Sayee Babu Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{UJJAL BHUYAN} AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2569 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Divi Satya Sayee Babu, s/o Divi Madhusudhana^{Rao Aged4_4 Years,Occ-} Businesi, Fl/o Svaasa Farm, 4-17|D,^{KhanapurVillage,Rajendranagar} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development^{Department,Secretariat,} Hyderabad

¶12

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development^{Authority, Rep. by its} Commissioner, HMDA Complex,^{Tarnaka,Hyderabad}

¶13

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply^{and SewerageBoard' Rep. by.its.} Manajing Director, Administrative Office^{Building Khairatabad'Hyderabad- 4}

¶14

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{Rep. by its Commissioner,CC} Complex, Tank Bund, LowerTank^{Bund, Hyderabad -500063}

¶15

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy^{Rangareddy CollectorateOffice,} Lakdikapul, Hyderabad

¶16

The Mandal Revenue Officer,^{Rajendranagar Mandal, RangareddyDistrict}

¶17

The Narsingi Muncipality, Rep by its Commissioner^{Narsingi Municipality} Office, Ranga Reddy District

¶18

B. The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Principal Secretary to the Government} lrrigation and Command Area Development^{Department Secretariat} Hyderabad

¶19

(Respondent Nos 7 and 8 are impleaded as^perCo_urt Order^dated 1310412022 Vide lA No 2 ot 2020ⁱⁿ WP No.2569^{of 2O2O)}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe}

¶22

pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof} writ of Mandarnus, declaring the action^{of the respondentsin trying to enter into} and interfere^r,rr, ith the^{peaceful possession and enjoymentby the Petitionerof his} property in Survey No. 157/1 admeasuring Ac^{1.10 Gts, SurveyNo. 156/2} admeasuring /\c. 0.14 Gts, Survey^{No.15713admeasuring Ac 1 10 Gts and} Survey No. 161/3 admeasuring^{Ac'1-15Gts at KhanapurVillage, Rajendranagar} Mandat, Ranga Reddy District and^{threateningto dispossess him as being illegal,} arbitrary, unco nstitutio nal, in^{violation of the principles of naturaljustice and in} violation of Articles 14,21 and^300-A of^{the Constitutionof lndia and} consequently lo issue a direction^{restrainingthe respondentsfrom interfering in} any manner vrhatsoever with^{the peaceful possessionand enioymentby the} Petitioner of the said^property.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶24

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the HighCourt maybe pleasedto} direct the respondents^not to^{interferein any manner whatsoeverwith the} peaceful possession and enjoyment by the Petitioner^{of his property in Survey} No. 1 5711 adrneasuring Ac^{1 .1 0 Gts, SurveyNo.1 56/2 admeasuringAc.0.'1 4} Gts, Survey No.¹ 5713 admeasuring Ac^{1 .1 0 Gts and Survey No. 1 60/3} admeasuring ,Ac 1-15 Gts at^{KhanapurVillage, Rajendranagar Mandal,Ranga} Reddy District

¶25

lA NO: 3 OF 2t)20

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavil filed in support of^{the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto} fu(her extend the interim order dated^{OO|O2|2O2Opassedin l.A. No. 1 of 2020in} W.P. No. 256{) of 2020, as extended on^1010212020.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^SRIRAMPOLALI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI^{S'BHOOMA GOUD' GP FOR MUNICIPAL} ADMN.& URBAN DEV

¶29

Counsel for Respondent No.2: SRI^{Y.RAMA RAO, SC for HMDA}

¶30

Counsel for F:espondent No.3:^{SRIT.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SC for HMWSSB}

¶31

Counsel for F:espondent No.4:^{SRI NEELI ASHOK KUMAR, SC for GHMC}

¶32

Counsel for tl're Respondent^{Nos.S & 6: SRI PARSAANANTH NAGESHWAR} RAO GP FOFI REVENUE

¶33

Counsel for Flespondent No.7:^{SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR,SC}

¶34

Counsel for Flespondent No.8:^{SRI HARISH, GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD}

¶35

The Court mzrde the following:^ORDER

¶36

THE HON'BLD THE^{CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN}

¶37

AND

¶38

THE HONOURAB LE MRS^{JUSTIC E SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶39

1VRIT PETITION N0.2569^{of 2O2O}

¶40

ORDER: Per te Hon'bte^{tlrc ChieJJustice Ujjal Bhugan)}

¶41

Heard Mr. Sriram Polali,^{learned counselfor the} petitioner; Mr. S.Bhooma^{Goud, learned GovernmentPleader} for Municipal Administration^{and Urban Developmentfor} respondent No.1; Mr.^{Y.RamaRao, learned StandingCounsel} for Hyderabad Metropolitan^{DevelopmentAuthority(HMDA)} for respondent No.2;^{Mr. T.SudhakarReddy,learned Standing} Counsel for Hyderabad^{Metropolitan Water Supply &} Sewerage Board for^{respondent No.3; Mr. Neeli Ashok Kumar,} iearned Standing Counsel^{for Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporation for respondent^{No.4; Mr.Parsa Ananth} Nageshwar Rao, learned^{Government Pleader for Revenue for} respondent Nos.5 & 6;^{Mr. N.PraveenKumar, learned} Standing Counsel for^{respondent No.7; and Mr' Harish,} learned Government^{Pleaderfor Irrigation for respondent} ( \ No.B.

¶42

¶43

HCJ& SlfJ W.P.No.2569 of 2O20

¶44

This writ petition has been Iiled seeking the

¶45

lollowin6J reliefs:

¶46

"For the aforesaid reasons, it is humbly prayed that this Honble Court mzr), be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or ar1y other appropriate writ. order or direction declaring the action of the responderrts in trying to enrer into and interfere with the peaceful possessioe and enjo5rment by the petitioner of his property in Suney No. 157/ 1 ad measuring Ac 1 . 10 Gts, Survey No. 156/2 admeasuring Ac. 0.14 Gts, Survey No. 157/3 admeasuring Ac 1.10 Gts alrd Survey No. i6O/3 acmeasuring Ac 1-15 Gts at Khanapur Vi1lage, Rajendranagar Malrdal, Ranga Reddy District and threatening to dispossess him as being ille11al, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in vioiation of the principles of natural jrstice and in violation of Articles 14, 2l and, 3OO-A of the constitution of India and consequently to issue a direction restraining the respc,ndents from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful ltossession and enjoyment by the petitioner of the said property and pass such other order or orders as it deems fit in the facts and circumsturrces of the case in the interests of justice."

¶47

This Court passed the following order on 06.o2.2r)20:

¶48

"Heard Sri D. Pra_kash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, app,)aring for counsel for the petitioner.

¶49

¶50

The basic grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petidon is that without following due process of law, he calnot be clispossessed from the subject lands mentioned in the writ peti-ion.

¶51

3 HC-l& SNJ W.P.No.2569 of 2020

¶52

¶53

Learned Standing Counsei appea,ring for the 4,h respondent-GHMC submits that the subject area will not fa_Il within the purview of GHMC.

¶54

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3.a respondent submits that the Water Board is under the control of the 3.a respondent arrd he seeks time to get instructions.

¶55

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6 also seeks time to get instructions.

¶56

Post on lO.O2.2O2O,

¶57

Mealwhile, there shall be interim direction not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful possession ald enjoyment of the petitioner of his property in Survey No.157/1 admeasuring Ac.l.l0 guntas, Survey No.156/2 admeasuring Ac.0.l4 guntas, Survey No. 157/3 admeasuring Ac.l.lO guntas and Survey No.160/3 admeasuring Ac. I . l5 guntas at Khanapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Further, it is made clear that the petitioner should not construct anything in the land, which is falling within Full Tank Level (FTL) limits."

¶58

Thereafter on 06.03.2020, the interim order was extended until further orders. Finally on t3.04.2022, the interim order was made absolute.

¶59

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the vier.r' that the interim \ order dated 06.O2.2O2O as has been made absolute

¶60

4 HCJ & SNJ W.P.No.2569 of 2020

¶61

sufficiently protects the itrterest^{of the petitioner. If the} respondents want to acquire^{the land belonging to the} petitioner as described in the order^{dated 06.O2.2022} extracted above, certainly^{they wouldhave to follow the due} procedurr: established by law. Without^{following the due} process of law, no person can^{be dispossessedof his land.}

¶62

That being the position, interim^{order passedon} 06.02.2020 is made absolute.^{However, if the respondents} require the aforesaid land for^{any public purpose, it would be} open to 1-hem to^proceed strictly^{in accordancewith law after} due notir:e to the^petitioner.

¶63

This disposes of the Writ Petition.^{However, there}

¶64

shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

Miscellaneous applications^{pending,if any, shall}

¶66

stand ckrsed

¶67

SD/. T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I tN SECTION OFfICER

¶68

To, 1. The P'incipal Secretary to the Government,^{Municipal Administrationand} Urban Development D6partment,^{State of Telangana,Secretariat,Hy9SlgPuO}

¶69

1. The Commissioner, Hyderabad^{Metropolitan Development Authority,HtvlDA} Comolex. Tarnaka. Hvderabad

¶70

1. The IVanaging Direct6r, Hyderabad^{Metropolitan Water Supply andSewerage} Board, Administrative Office^{Building Khairatabad, Hyderabad} -⁴

¶71

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation,CC Complex,} Tank llund, Lower Tank^{Bund, Hyderabad-500063}

¶72

The Districi Collector, Ranga^{Reddy Rangareddy CollectorateOffice,} Lakditrapul, Hyderabad

¶73

¶74

¶75

The Mandal^{Revenue Oflicer'RajendranagarYul{9t'Ranqareddy District} 7. The Commissioner,^{rurr.i"diftfrii.ipitity,NtarsingiMuncipality Officer Ranga} Reddv District

¶76

Reddv District

¶77

a. d;;+iiii;ai'Secretary^{to the Government' lrrig€tion and Command Area} Develooment^{oepartmeni, Siat"tiiJring'nu'-SecretariatHvderabad}

¶78

q rwo CCs to the Ce tor niiiffiir Aarn.^{d UrOanDev., High Courtfor the} - State of Telangana [OUT1 1 0. Two ccs to^{the Gp to, nlr"nu",Highcourtfor the stateof Telangana[oUTl} i;.+;; 6d; i;^{iii; cp to|. riisiii;'i'ac"Ao'Hish court ror the Stateor} Telanqana [OUT]

¶79

rz dni'6t'io'sai^{snrnnruPoLALl,Advocate l9i.r'l9l} .i6 o",lliictl"sn"r vnnrran RAo, sc for HIi/DA tq?qc' 14.one cc to^{sRl T.SUDHAIaHilioili' scr"'r" rlttllYv-s-s-B^Lgfllcl} iE Ell" 6d i;^{5'Ci r'rEeir nsiox xur'rtni' sc ror GHMC-[oPUC]} j6.5ll" dd i; 5Hi liE-nnvielt kutrren, Advocate toPUCl

¶80

17.Two C.D.^CoPies

¶81

18.One SPare^CoPY.

¶82

MRC GJP

HIGH COUITT

DATED:0310812022

ORDER

WP.No.25li9 of²⁰²⁰

a .1.
2 3 sEP 2fl2
':,/

¶89

DISPOSIi,IG^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUTCOSTS @x*

Divi Satya Sayee Babu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divi Satya Sayee Babu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Ts.,Genl.Admn.,Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. Vs Smt. v. Chinnaji, Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Maddela Kishtaia and another Vs Bekkanti Devaiah and 5 others

Mr.Ramesh Panthakani Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax

M/s.Salora International Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.Tirumala Constructions Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Secy, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi Vs N. Swadesa Rao, Hyd and 3 Ot