Allowed

Moodu Aruna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Dec 2022WP/4312/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, considering a writ petition challenging eviction and demolition proceedings, held that the authorities cannot interfere with the petitioner's possession without issuing a notice or initiating proper legal action under the law, emphasizing the need for due process over summary eviction.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject property until proper action in accordance with law is initiated.

Moodu Aruna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶¹

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:4312 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Moodu Aruna, Wo Venkanna, aged about 33 Years, Rio V Venkatayapalem Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by the District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶12

The Tahsildar,, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶13

State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶14

(Respondent No. 4 is impleaded as per court Order dated 02.12.2022 in

¶15

l.A.No.1 of 20171

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to disposses and trying to demolish the houses of the Petitioner in Plot Nos.7 and 8 in Sy.N0.231lE of Ballepally Village(Gram Panchayat), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Principles of Natural Justict and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents not to disposses and not to demolish the houses in Plot No.7 & 8 Sy.NO.231lE of Ballepally Village(Gram Panchayat), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District

¶18

f .A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 5377 OF 20131

¶19

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 and not to demolish the houses ih Plot

¶20

No. 7 & B Sy.i.lo. 231lE of Ballepally Village(Gram Panchayat), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

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 receive the following documents those are^'1) Copy of building permission in plot No 7, 2) copy of building^{permissionan plot} No 8 3) Copy of NOC for the plot No 4, 5) Copy of NOC for the^plot No 2/A, 5) Copy of^proceedings of R.D.O., dated 2410412013,6) Copy of conversion of the land in Sy No 231|E7) Copy of Power bill dated 2t12t2O2O^B )^{Copy of} House tax dated^O5tO5t2O1O in W.P No^qSlZ ot 2013 by condoning the delay^if any filing

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI

¶24

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4312 of 2OL3 ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel fc,r- the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying t-o dispossess and demolish the houses of the petitioner situated in subject Plot Nos.7 and B situated in Survey No.231/E of Ballepally Village (Gram Panchal,zl) Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner and possessor of aforesaid property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated OB.O2-2O12 uide document No.c:)2l2Ol2 and also claims to have constructed a house therer-rn. It is further case of the petitioner that when the possession of the vendor of the petitioner was sought to be disturbed by the District Collector, Khammam and the Executir.e Engineer of Irrigation Department, he approached the competent Civil Court and filed suits in O.S.No.728 and 73O of 1996 and the said suits were decreed in favour of the vendcjr of the petitioner by judgment

¶30

)

¶31

and decree, dated 06.04.1999 restraining the District Collector from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property. While things stood thus, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respolldents herein, without following any due process of law and vrithout issuing any notice to the petitioner, trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject plots and to demolish the houses existing thereon. Aggrieved tirereby, the petitioner approached this Court.

¶32

When the mattir came up for hearing on 13.02.2013, the respondents assured to this Court that they would not resort to demolition of the subject house.

¶33

The respondents liled counter-affidavit contending that though the petitioner is claiming the subject plots in Survey No.231 under registered document, constructed house in survey No. 13 of Khanapuram Village and surveyor also submitted a report to that effect. It is further stated that the respondents have no objection if the petitioner is making construction of house or continuing in possession of the subject plots situated in Survey No.231. However, nothing is stated in the counter with regard to action taken by the respondents in order to dispossess or demolish the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is making a claim over the subject property basing

upon a registered document and also placing reliance on a judgment and decree passed by a competent civil Court, which is referred to hereinabove.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and anotherl, wherein it was held as under:

¶39

-Ihe conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by Sections 6 ar,d 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Governmerlt on the question of title, remembering r;5ps6is1ly that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the resporydents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. May be, that the I Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily."

¶40

7 . Taking into consideration the faCts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side and having perused the material on record, this Court is of

¶41

¶42

I 1198212 Suprerne Court Cases 134

¶43

¶44

: ., '.,^l

¶45

tlie considered view that in case if the respondents have got any claim and right over the land, in which the petitioner is in possession, it is for the respondents to follow due process of law and then take action in accordance with law. But, as is evident from the counter, they have so far not initiated action in accordance with law except contending that the petitioner is in possession of land in Survey No.13. In the light of the above, this Court is of the consiciered view that until and unless the respondents initiate proper action in accordance with law, they are not entitled to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subjcct properfy.

¶46

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property. In case, if the respondents intend to take any action, ttrey shall strictly follow the due process of law.

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petilion shall stand closed. There shal1 be no order as to costs.

¶48

. O'- " fJt, Uif,oiH H3 |SHRA

//TRUE^COPY// t ll )

SECTION^OFFICER

To, I The Revenue^{Divisional Officer',Khammam,Khammam District'} 2. TheTa^{hsildar,, KhammamUrba n Mandal,KhammamDistrict.} 3. The^{Princlpal Secretary,Revenu e DePartment, State of Telangana'} Secretariat,^Hvderabad.

¶53

1. One CC^to Sri'Pulla Rao^{YellankiAdvocate} h Court^{for [OPUtheState clof Telangana. [OUTI} 5. Two CCs^{toGP For Revenue,Hi} 6. Two CD^CoPies

¶54

MBC . LS

lr lr I I I li

I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0211212022

I
i-iE $Trq 14:
(
q
.)
o
2{ FEB 2[n
t
ORDER

¶61

WP.No.4312^{ot 2013}

¶62

DISPOSTNG^{OF THE WRIT PETITION}

¶63

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶64

A
-T1
@
{Y

Moodu Aruna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moodu Aruna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samineni Swarajyam, Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Arifa Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri Vivekananda Desai Vs The State of Telangana

Weldflux India Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Kala Praful Jain Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Surender Goud Vs The State of Telangana