Dismissed

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Oct 2022WP/2842/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana addressed three consolidated writ petitions concerning the petitioner's claim to agricultural land. The court found the petitioner had submitted inconsistent sworn statements regarding the submission of her original patta. Consequently, the court refused to grant relief and dismissed the petitions with costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 each payable to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8742 OF 2009; 2842 OF 2019 AND 25140 OF 2022

¶7

wP NO.8742 0F 2009:

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Rukkamma, W/o.Janga Reddy Agriculture Rlo.2-112, Nizampet (V), Qutbullapur Mandal, R.R.District. ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The District Collector,, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar,, Qutbullapur Mandal, R.R. ?l.rJ[3fono."r,

¶12

Petition under r'r'ticle 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 Mandamus directing the respondents to record petitioner name in revenue records as per rules without any delay pertaining to the land an extent of 1-36 acres in Survey No. 270 in Nizampet village of Qutbullapur Mandal as per assignment patta vide No. BO16497l78 dt. 16-9-79, and declaring their inaction is being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia

¶13

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 11988 OF 2009)

¶14

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 not to dispossess the petitioner in respect of her agricultural land to the extent of 1.36 acres in Survey No. 270 in Nizampet village of Qutbullapur Mandal, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of^justice.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2O22:

¶16

Between:

¶17

The District Collector,, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar,, Qutbullapur Mandal, R.R.-Diskict. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

AND

¶19

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

K.Rukkamma, W/o.Janga Reddy Agriculture No.2-112, Nizampet (V), Qutbullapur Mandal, R.R.District. ...RESPONOENT/PETITIONER

¶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 vacate the interim orders passed in l.A.No.1 of 2009 (WPMP No. 11988 of 2009) in W.P.No. 87 42 of 2009, dated 2910412009 and dismiss the Writ Petition with costs as devoid of merits, in the interest of^justice

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENUGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL

¶23

FOR SRI RAMANAALLU

¶24

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

WP NO: 2842 OF 2019

¶26

Between:

¶27

'1. Kolanu Rukma Reddy @ Rukka Reddy,, S/o late Janga Reddy, aged 68 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. D.No.2-113,

¶28

Kolanu Prathap Reddy,, S/o late Janga Reddy, aged 66 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, RYo. D.No.2-1 12,

¶29

Kolanu Janardhana Reddy,, S/o late Janga Reddy,. aged 58 years, Hindu, Occ, Agriculture, R/o. D.No.2-1 14l1 ,

¶30

Kolanu Jagadeeshwar Ready, S/o late Narasimha Reddy, aged 24 yearc, (Grandson of K. Rukkamma, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. D.No.2-1 11,

¶31

All are Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal,Medchel-rr'ujn,r,_O.l?T,Flor..

¶32

AND

¶33

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

¶34

The District Collector,, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Keesara.

¶35

The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Malkajgiri Revenue Division,^Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶36

The Tahsildar,, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Dislrict-

¶37

The Village Revenue officer,, Nizampet village, Bachupally^{Mandal, Medchal} Malkajgiri District'

¶38

,..RESpoNDENrs 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 particularity one in

¶39

the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the lmpugned Order, vide proceedings No. LC|17O7l2O18 dt.O4.07.2018, issued by the 2d Respondent, by allotting the petitioners land in Survey No, 270 admeasuring Ac. 1-36 guntas situated in Nizampet village, for the purpose of Development of Park ignoring the lnterim Order of this Honble High Court in W.P.M.P.No. 1 1988 of 2009 in WP.No .87 42 of 2009 passed on 30-04-2009 is illegal, high handed and violation of Article 14 ,2'1 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia by directing the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land

¶40

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶41

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 stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the lmpugned Order, vide proceedings No. LC|170712018 d1,O4.07 .201 8, issued by the District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District, pending disposat of he above writ petition in the interest f iustice.

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF 2022:

¶43

Between:

¶44

Kolanu Tulasi Reddy Colony Residents Welfare Association, Nizampet, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, represented by its President V. Rangaraya Prasad S/o. Late V. Suryanatayana Murthy, Rl/o. Kolanu Tulasi Reddvcoronv'Nizampet'u'"nHfl"ty^Y?t+fl i$,?Hs$?tg=B'iE!"t,ur.*rno.u

¶45

AND

¶46

Kolanu Rukma Reddy @ Rukka Reddy, S/o late Janga Reddy

¶47

Kolanu Prathap Reddy,, S/o late Janga Reddy

¶48

Kolanu Janardhana Reddy,, S/o late Janga Reddy

¶49

Kolanu Jagadeeshwar Ready, S/o late Narasimha Reddy,

¶50

All are R:/o. Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal,Medchel-Malkaigiri DstricL.

¶51

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

¶52

6- The District Collector,, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Keesara.

¶53

The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Malkajgiri Revenue Division, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶54

The Tahsildar,, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶55

The Village Revenue officer,, Nizampet village, Bachupally^{Mandal, Medchal} Malkajgiri District

¶56

...RESpoNDENrs

¶57

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in}

¶58

the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto}

¶59

vacate the interim order granted by order dated: 15.02.2019 in l.A.No:^'f of 2019 in W.P.No 2842 ol 2019.

¶60

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶61

Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC R/w. 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 implead the petitioner as party respondent No.6 in the above writ petition W.P.No 2842 of 2019 and miscellaneous petitions. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENUGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL /-FOR SRI RAMANA ALLU

¶62

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE^/'

¶63

Counsel for the Proposed Respondent: SRI K. RAMBABU

¶64

WPTITION NO:25140 OF 2022

¶65

Between:

¶66

Kolanu Rukma Reddy @ Rukka Reddy, S/o late Janga Reddy, aged 71years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, Ryo. D.No.2-1 13,

¶67

Kolanu Prathap Reddy, S/o late Janga Reddy, aged 69 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, Rt/o- D.No.2-1 12,

¶68

Kolanu Janardhana Reddy, S/o late Janga Reddy, aged 62 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. D.No.2-1^'14l1 ,

¶69

Kolanu Jagadeeshwar Reddy, S/o , late Narasimha Reddy, aged 27 yearc, (Grandson of K. Rukkamma) Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o. D.No.2-1 11,

¶70

All are Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal, Medchel-MalkajgiriOistriiJa"

¶71

AND

¶72

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban development (MA and UD), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-

¶73

The Nizampet Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Nizampet.

¶74

The lnspector of Police, Bachupally Police station.

¶75

...RES'.NDENTS

¶76

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 particularity one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Representation, thereby seeking not to dispossess the^petitioners from their^land in Sy. No. 270 admeasuring Ac.1 -36^guntas situated in Nizampet, Bachupally Mandal, Nizampet Municipal Corporation under the^guise of Development of Park, ignoring the lnterim Order of this Honble High Court in l.A. No.^{11 2O19 in}

¶77

W .P.No.284212019 dt. 1 5.02.2019 in the interest of justice by declaring the Respondents inaction is illegal, high handed and violation of Article 14 ,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia

¶78

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶79

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 2 and 3 Respondents to consider the Representation, thereby seeking not to dispossess the petitioners from their land in Survey No. 270 admeasuring Ac.1-36 guntas situated in Nizampet, Bachupally Mandal Nizampet Municipal Corporation pending disposal of WP in the interest of^justice

¶80

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. VENUGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAMANA ALLU

¶81

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶82

Counsel for Respondent No. 2

¶83

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: GP FOR HOME

¶84

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶85

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNL)GANTI

¶86

WRIT^PETITIONS flo. 8742 of2OO9, 2A42 of201.9 a;l.d 25140 of 2022

¶87

COMMON ORDER:

¶88

Writ Petition No. 8742 of 2009 is liled seeking the follorving relief:

¶89

to issuc an appropriate \t'rit, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of lvrit of mandamus directing the rcspondents to record petitioner nan:e in revenue records as per rules without any delay pertaining to the land an extent of 1.36 acres in Survey No. 270 in Nizampet Village of Qutbullapur Mandal, as per assignment patta vide No. 86 /6497 178, dt. 16.9.79, and declaring their inaction is being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India ancl pass such othcr furthcr order or orders as this Honble Court may deem lit and proper in the circumstances o{ the case."

¶90

It is the case of the petitioncr that an extent of Ac. 1.36 guntas in Survcy No. 27O in Nizampet Village was assigned in favour of the pelitioner by proceedings dated 16.09.1979 and the petitioner and hcr family is iri possession of the propert5r from thereon. It is submitted that when the petitioner has approached thc rcspondents for mutation of her name on O2.OA.2O22, the same was acknolvledged and the Collector asked clarilicatio n whether the name of the^petitioner got recorded or not in thc rcvenuc rccords. It is submitted that the petitioner has madc another represcntation dated

¶91

02.Oa.2022 that she has submitted the original petta and when no action hes been initiatecl by the respondents, the iretitioner has come up before this Court.

¶92

-1. 'lhis Court by order dated 29.04 2009, had directed to maintain status E)o obtaining as on that day. Leernt:d Senior Counsel suL mits that thereafter, the petitioner's sc,n liled Writ Petition No. 2842 cf 2O19 questioning the proc:edings dated 04.O7.2O18 issued by the 2nd respondent by ::llor.ting the petitioner's Irnd in Survey No. 27O admeasuring l.c. 1.36 guntas situated at lrlizampet Village for the purpos,: of dcvelopment of park ignorir g the interim orders passed by this C curt in Writ Petition No. 8742 of 2009. [t is submitted that this Court in the iight oi the :ariier orders passed in Lhe other Wlit Petition, by proceedings dat.ed 75.O2.2019 had grante<i interirn direction as prayed for. [t is submitted that thereafter, the pelit on,:r in Writ Petition No. 2842 ol 2019 has come up wi:h Writ Pe-ition No. 2514O of 2022, whrerein the petitioner has sough: the relief not to dispossers him from the subject land in the guize of development ol park ignoring the interim orders ol this Court. 4. fhis Court in Writ Petition No. 2514() :[^',1,022 uide order ciated 10.06.2022 has granted the order o', s,tatus quo to be maintain,:d in all respects. It is submitted tha'. l.he petitioner

¶93

the petitioner is in occupation of the property and now, contrary to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions No. 2514O of 2022 and 2842 of 2019, thc respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner.

¶94

Today, when the Writ Petitions came up for hearing, Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Cor-rnsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ramana Allu, learned counse I for the petitioner in Writ petition No. 25140 of 2022 submits that patta has been granted in favoui' of the petitioner which has been disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue stating that they have not granted patta to the petitioner and there are no such records and in fact, in the year 2OC8 itself, they have assigned land in favour of A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited and interim order rvas obtained in 2OO9 . Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner could not submit original patta before this Court or before the respondent officials. Then learned Senior Counsel has draw,n attention of this Court to the proceedings dated O2.O8.20O2 which was addressed to the Mandal Revenue Offrcer, Ranga Reddy District and submits that along with this copy, the petitioner has submitted the original patta to the respondents and the sarre is lying with them. If the

¶95

¶96

entire reco(l is produced before this Court the Lr,:e facts ivill come into li6,ht.

¶97

Ihis Court has obscn,cd that in the e;ulier round of litigation, i.t . Writ Petition No. 8742 of 2OO9, th,: petitioner at page 13 of tl-re said Writ Petition as material paper had filed the very proccecings dated 02.Oa.2OO2 wherein it is nrentioned that she is subrnitting this copl' along with the zLpplic,rt on When it comes to Writ Petition No. 25i40 of 2022, there ir; interpolation and also thr:re is a correction madc wherei n it i:;^,rrrit ten as "l am submitt ng this copy along with original pattrr". In Writ Petition No. 3742 of 2OO9, it is written as "l submitting this copy along rvith I pplication". It clearly shows that the pt:titoner has not ccrr-are tri the Ct'rurt witlr cleau hands and also with an intention tc obtain orders irom this Court ra s fiied the document d,rted 02.08.20O2 by adding the ';r'ord original patta' [o show thzLt original patta is with the r<:spon,1ents. A bare perusal of tte material papers, it is very much visible to a naked eye. On a query from the Court, learnr-.d counse I for the petitioner also does not dispute the fact that in bcth the writ pcLiLions Lwc differenL vcrsions of l-tre sarne docum::r:t uere filed. 7. 'lhough this Court initially intend to initiate perjury proceedings against the petitioner, taking inr-o con sideration the

¶98

¶99

request made by the learnecl counsel for the petitioners, each Writ Petition is dismissed with costs ol Rs. IO,OOO/_ (Rupees ten thousand onry) to be payable ro the Telangana state Legal Services Authority, within fifteen days. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶100

8 The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. J^

¶101

¶102

MEMORANDUIil OF COSTS

¶103

WRIT PETITION NO: 8742 OF 2009; 2842 OF 2019 AND 25140 0F 2022

¶104

Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court: That the petitioners herein in all the Writ Petitions are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,0001 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in each Writ Petition to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days .

¶105

30,000 30,000

¶106

SD/. G.,SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /'= ^

sEcit#d oFFtcER

To,

1 The Secretary, Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. 2 One CC to Sri Ramana Allu Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4 One CC to Sri K. Rambabu, Advocate(OPUC) 5 Two CCs to GP For Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies

¶111

MBC \y

'l I @,t*t

I-I!G}{ COURT

DI\TE^{l):1 'l 11012022}

¶116

:--
.<br>,4
)
G';
:) 4i I s'i NI
* p,...:a: -
: t'-'----
-;-'

¶117

C OMIVION ORDER

¶118

WP.No.87 42 of^{2009; 28t'2 of 2019} A1'lD 2 51t'0 of²⁰²²

¶119

DISMISSING^{OF THI.- WITIT PETITION} WITH COSTS

¶120

@ 1O^th

¶121

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valmiki Samaj Seva Sangh Vs The State of Telangana

P.V.V.S.S. Sivarama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Aribandi Seethamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vijayagiri Shivaji Vs The State of Telangana and another

Gonda Mallesham Vs The state of Telangana and 4 others