Allowed

Smt.Sunnam Susheela v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC25 Apr 2022WP/3709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging the 3rd Respondent's action in destroying the petitioner's crops without notice or land acquisition proceedings. The Court directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's land until due process of law is followed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's land without following the due process of law.

Smt.Sunnam Susheela Vs The State of Telangana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3709 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.Sunnam Susheela,^\N lo Bazaru Age.43 years, Occ.Coolie Riio Pusugudem Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri-Kotahgudem Dist.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner and Director, of Municipal Administration, Musab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Palwancha Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Palwancha Town, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent and his sub-ordinates in destructing the crop of the petitioner in Sy-No.241116 to an extent of Ac.O-28 guntas and in Sy.No.241l22 to an extent of Ac.1-38 guntas total admeasuring Ac.2-26 guntas situated at Pusugudem Village, Mulakalapalli tvlandal of Bhadradri-Kothagudem Dist., without issuing any notice and without initiating land acquisition proceedings as villegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of nalural justice and also violative of Art.300-A and V Schedule of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, direct the 3rd Respondent and his staff not to dispossess the Petitioner from her land in any manner.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

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 3rd Respondent not to obstruct the agricultural operations in Sy.No.241l22 to an exlent of Ac.1-38 guntas total admeasuring Ac.2-26 gunlas satuated at Pusugudem Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal of Bhad radri-Kothagudem Dist., pending the disposal of writ petition in the interest of^justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNCIPALITIES

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

UIRIT PETITION No. 3709 OF 2O2l

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent and his subordinates in destructing the crop of the petitioner in Survey No. 241116, in an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas and in Survey No. 241/22 in an extent of Ac. 1.38 guntas, total admeasuring Acs.2.26 guntas situated at Pusugudem Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal o[ BhadradriKothagudem District without issuing any notice and without initiating land acquisition proceedings. 2. Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the^(x{'ner of the abovesaid property. It is stated that when the revenue authorities are disturbing her possession without issuing any notice and without following due process of larv, thc pctitioner filed Writ Petition No. 185 of 2O2O and the samc \l,as disposed of by this Court on O9.11.2O2O. It is also stated thzrt in spite of the orders passed by this Court directing the respondent ofilcials not to interfere with the lands of the petitioncr, the revenue officials are again interfering with her possession and the petitioner is also taling steps to hle a contempt pctition. It is stated that on

¶25

¶26

lO.O2.2O2l, at around 05.OO p.m., the 3'd respondent came to the petitioner's agricultural land along with their staff and started destroying the crops without issuing any prior notice. He submits that without verihcation of the records, the 3'd respondent threatened that the land falls in the^jurisdiction of Paloncha and the same is located in Survey No. 817 of Paloncha jurisdiction without conducting any survey and demarcation in the presence of the affected persons. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are objecting the petitioner from carrying out the agricultural operations without issuing any notice and without initiating any proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality Sri N. Praveen Kumar basing on the written instructions obtained from the Commissioner, Paloncha Municipality submits that the boundary of the land of the petitioner is existing between Paloncha and Pasugudem Villages ancl the revenue authorities have handed over the government land u'ith measurements as per the revenue and survey records. lt is stated that the petitioner wrongly mentioned their land boundaries, and she may approach the revenue authorities ancl file 'F' line petition for identifying their land boundaries in

¶27

¶28

Survey Nos. 241/16 artd 24ll22 of Pasugudem Village. It is also stated that the Tahsildar, Paloncha has erected the board and mentioned that the land in Survey No. 817/ I is reserved for Paloncha Municipality. It is also stated that the municipal authorities have entered into a lease agreement with M/s CGR JV Private Limited to establish and operate / maintain the FSTPs. for a period of 3O days.

¶29

In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel tiat the respondent authorities u,ill act in accordance with law, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent autllorities not to interfere with the petitioner's land without following due process of law. Thcre shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

The Miscellaneous Applications, i[ any shall stand automatically closed.

¶31

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶32

//TRUE COPY// 1 SE d N OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

1 The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶35

2 The Commissioner and Director, of Municipal Admanistration. Musab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶36

The Commissioner, Palwancha Municipality, Palwancha Town, Bhadradrikothagudem Dist

¶37

4 One CC to SRI M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNCIPALITIES IOPUCI

¶38

6 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶39

7 Two CD Copies.

¶40

8 One Spare Copy.

NPJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510412022

TA ir
-l
0 5 SEP 2[71
,).
+
'S

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.3709 of 2021

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

U'
-eA
wal
<br>n"

Smt.Sunnam Susheela v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sunnam Susheela v. The State of Telangana and 2 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

M.A. Majeed and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Kagithapu Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

M/s Trust Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Lokesh Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Ms.Kavadi Gouthami Vs The Station House Officer and another