Dismissed

J.Ravinder Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2022WP/5553/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the State Government's proposal to shift a bus stand to converted shikam land in Gajwel. The Court distinguished the proceedings from previous precedents, noting the land lacked water and a road existed there for decades, validating the conversion and construction in larger public interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed without costs, upholding the validity of the bus stand construction.

J.Ravinder Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION (P UBLIC INTE REST LITIGATION) NO i 301 OF 2017

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO .5553 0F 2018

¶10

W.P PIL .No.301 ol 2017

¶11

Between:

¶12

l, 8p1"._t ._Goud,^{S/o Narayana go.ud,} Aggd^{35 years,} Occ: Agriculture, Ryo.H.No.9-155, Opp: Krishna Tempte cajwet (V&N/), Siddiiet District.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

The State of Telangana, R.eO bV its Principal Secretary Transport
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State,
Hyderabad.
4. The District Colleclor, Siddipet District At Siddipet.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel, Siddipet District.

¶18

The Tahasildar, Gajwel (M), Siddipet District. 7. The Executive Engineer, (H & D )Division, Gajwel, Siddipet District.

¶19

B. The Managing Director, TSRTC at lVusheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos. 3 to 8 in proposing to shift the RTC Bus stand from

¶22

Bus stand from Gajwel town to the outskirts of Gajwel al 5 112 of KIV distance, in tank bed land (shikam land) which is a Pond as per the revenue records, ignoring the guidelines and contrary to the order passed in Civil Appeal no.113212011 @ SLP(c )no.3109/2011 (arising out of SLP (c )CC.no.19869/2010) d1.28-1-2011 without conducting Grama Sabha and without considering the^public opinion at large, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the respondents not to shift the existing bus stand of Gajwel town.

¶23

'1.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WP(PIL)MP. NO: 580 OF 2017)

¶24

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 to fo(hwith stop the proposal of shifting the existing bus stand of Gajwel town to outskirts of Gajwel town, pending disposal of the Writ Petition (PlL) in the interest of Justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : NONE APPEARED

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI.N.VASUDEVA REDDY

¶30

W.P.NO: 5553 OF 2018

¶31

Between:

¶32

J.Ravinder Reddy, S/o. J. Laxma Reddy, aged aboul 42^years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Gajwel town, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Planning^(Vl) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶36

The Special Chief Secretary to Government,, Revenue^{(Assignment-l)} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶37

The Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,^Govt.of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶38

The District Collector, Siddipet District, T.S.

¶39

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel, Siddipet District.

¶40

The Tahsidlar, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶41

The Nagar Parchayal,. Gajwel-Pregnapur, Represented by its Commissioner, Gajwel town, Gajwel IVlandal, Siddipet District.

¶42

I lhe^{Deputy Executive Engineer, lrrigation, Sub. Division, Gajwel,Siddipet} District.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

Petition Under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF TVANDAIVUS or any other appropriate Wiit or Direction, declaring the actron of the Respondents in issuing G.O.Rt.No.715, Planning (VI) Department Dated,25-0 9-2017 according sanciion to construct Modern Bus station by converting the tank bed land of Adavimamindla Kunta shikam land in Sy.No.685 admeasuring an extent of Ac.7-.16 guntas situated at Gajwel into ayan pursuant to the N,4emo No.14671/Assn- l(2)12017 -j, Dated.0807-2017 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and consequently set aside the same with a further direction to the respondents to preserve the said Adavi l,4ajeed Kunta (Adavimamindla Kunta) tank situated in Sy.No.685 at Gajwel village of Gajwel [r,4andal, Siddipet District, of Telangana state by measuring and fixing the boundaries of Tank, with prominent marks and structures and to safe guard the water body.

¶45

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶46

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 pleased to direct the Respondents not to construct the Modern Bus Stand in the water body of Adavi trilajeed Kunta (Adavi Mamindla Kunta) shikam land in Sy.No.6B5 admeasuring an extent Ac.7-16 guntas, situated at Gajwel, Siddipet District pursuant to [tr]emo No.1 467'1 /Assn -l(2)12O17 -1, dated.08-07-201 7 issued by the 2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶47

l.A.NO: 2 OF 2018

¶48

Between:

¶49

The Special Chief Secretary to Government,, Revenue (Assignment-l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶50

The Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Govt. of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶51

The District Collector, Siddipet District, T.S,

¶52

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel, Siddipet District.

¶53

The Tahsidlar, Gajwel ltzlandal, Siddipet District.

¶54

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶55

AND

¶56

J.Ravinder Reddy, S/o. J. Laxma Reddy, aged about42 vears. Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Gajwel town, Gajwet Ma;da[ Siddipet OisrriCt.^{-' --}

¶57

....RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS

¶58

The State of Telangana.,, .8"p. by its principal Secretary planning (Vl) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶59

The Nagar Panchayat, Gajwel-pregnapur, Represented by its Commissioner, Gajwel torain, Ga',w6l Mandat, SiOOipeiOis(riCt_

¶60

+. ]|g.pepgt.y Executive Engineer, lrrigation, Sub. Division, Gajwel, Siddipet District.

¶61

(Respondent No.2 to 4 are not necessary parties to this petition)

¶62

...RESPONDENTS

¶63

Petition Under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may oe pteaieJ to vacate the status-quo orders dt: 20.o2.2oig passed in wp No.5ss3 oi z01g ano dismiss the writ petition.

¶64

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl.SAl cANGADHAR CHAMARTY

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR FTNANCE AND pLANN|NG

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : G.p FOR REVENUE

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & I : G.p FOR IRRIGATION AND

¶68

COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶69

The.Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶70

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶71

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶72

WRIT PETITION IPILI No,3O1 of 2O17 & W.P,No.5553 of 2018

¶73

COMMON ORDER'a Per the Hoft'bte the Chief Justbe Satistt Ctlandra Shanna)

¶74

Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶75

'lhe lai:ts ol'W.1,.(l,ll,),No.301 oi 2017 are reproduced as under:

¶76

The present public interest ljtigation has been liled by the petitioner stating that he is a resident of Gajwel Village, Siddipet District and the respondent - State is constructing a bus stand outside the Gaju,'el town, which is at a distance of 572 KM. It has also been stated that the land over which the bus stand is being constructed in Sy.No.685 of Gajwel village to an extent of Ac.7.16 guntas is a shikam land as per the revenue record. The revenue record of the year 2OI7 has been filed in support of the aforesaid averment. Pahanies of the years 1950-51, 1955-53, 1985-86, 2005-06, 2010-11 were also been filed which describe the land as Adavi Mamindla Kunta Shikam i.e., sma1l tank.

¶77

¶78

The petitioner's contention is that in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Suprcme Court in Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and othersl decided on 28.01.2O11, no such construction can take place.

¶79

A detailed and exhaustive counter allidavit has been filed in the matter by the State Government and the affidavit reflects that the distance between the proposed bus stand in Sy.No.685 and Gajwel town is only Ac.2.4 guntas and not 5% kms. It has been stated that the present bus stand is located in a very congested locality and only six busses can park in the parking way and therefore, keeping in view the necessit5r to have a bigger bus stand, a decision has been taken by the Government to allot Ac.3.5 guntas in Sy.No.6B5 to the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation for construction of bus stand. The reply further reveals that the so-called Adavi Mamindla Kunta was abandoned more than 50 years back and there is a road connecting Toopran village and Gajwel tor',,n through the same Kunta dividing Ac.7.16 gunlas. It has :rlso been stated that on one side of the road the land is Ac.3.5 guntas and on the other side ol the road, the land is Ac.2,10 guntas. It has also been stated that a permanent road (bituminous) is existing over the

¶80

I Civil Appeal No.l132of2O1t @SLP(C).No.3t09of 20it dt, 28.0 t.20l t

¶81

so-called Adavi Mamindla Kunta. The^{respondents havealso} stated that as there was a need to construct^{a bus stand and as} the land is having ayaclrt, letter dated^O3.O7 .2017^{was written} to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,^Telangana, for conversion of shikam land in Sy.No.685 to an^{extent of} Ac.7.16 guntas of Gajwel Village and Mandal^{into Ayan and the} Government of Telangana by order dated^{08'07.2017has} accorded permission and the land was converted^{into Ayanover} which a bus stand can very well be constructed.^{The Managing} Director of TSRTC requested the District Collector,^Siddipet,to allot suitable Iand to an extent of^Ac.7.00 to^{Ac'8.00 for} construction of modern bus station at^{Gajweland thereafter,a} proposal \,as sent and finallv land admeasuring^Ac,3.5guntas in Sy.No.685 has bccn allotted lor construction^{of bus stand} and an amount ol Rs,5 crores^{was released by the Government} of Telangana vide G.O.Rt.No.715,^{Planning (VI) Department,} dated 25.09.2017^.

¶82

This Court has carefully gone through^{the documentson} record and the undisputed facts^reveal that^{there is no such} iake in existence at present. The so-called^{lake/shikam land in} Sy.No.6B5 of Gajwal village is^{also having a permanent road} bifurcating the land into two^{pieces and the road is in existence}

¶83

¶84

over the last 50 years. It is true that some of the revenue records reflected the land as shikam land. However, in larger public interest, the conversion of shikam land in Sy.No.685 has aiready been done by the State of Telangana by an order dated 31.07 .2OI7 and funds have been allocated for construction of bus stand. Much has been argued before this Court by placing reliance upon the^judgment delivered by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra).

¶85

In the aforesaid case, the Hon'b1e Supreme Court was certainly dealing with Gram Sabha 1and, Gram Panchayat land and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 of the judgment has observed that since independence over the country common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout and the land is noI le[t for villagers at all.

¶86

In the present case, the situation is altogether different. The land in question has been converted as land for construction of a bus stand in larger public interest, which is going to benefit the villagers as well as Gajwel town. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also makes it very clear that the Supreme Court has directed all the State Governments to prepare schemes for eviction of

¶87

¶88

illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/ Poramboke/ Shamlat iand and to restore them for common use of the villagers/ village ^ It has also been observed that no regularization order should be passed in respect of illegal occupants and regularization should be permitted in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land. In the present case there is public utility i.e., construction of bus stand keeping in view the expansion of population. The land has been converted by the State Government and funds have been allocated. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to allow the prayer made by the writ petitioner and the W.P.(PIL).No.3 Ol of 20IT deserves to be dismissed"

¶89

Learned counsel lor the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court has to be complied with.

¶90

There is no doubt about it. However, it is clarified that the judgment, which, learned counsel is referring to is not a judgment, but it is an interim order passed by the Court on 2l.O1.2OlL. Otherwise also, the present case is not a case

¶91

¶92

¶93

where some land^{grabbers are encroaching the Government} land. A bus stand^{is being constructed by the TSRTC'The land} was converted and it^{is not at all a lake"There is not a drop of} water over the land and^{a road is already in existence over the} last 50 years and the^{construction,which is being raised, is in} the larger^pubiic interest.

¶94

In W.P.No.5553 of 2018,^{learned counsel has drawnthe} attention of this Court^{towardsthe judgment dated27} 'll '2012 passed in W.P.No.23829 of^1997.

¶95

We are in agreement with^{r"he aforesaidjudgment.The} lakes are required to be^{protected.However,the present case is} having a distinguishable^{feature.The so-calledshikam landis} bifurcated by a^{permanent road (bituminous) and the road is in} existence over the last^{50 years.Not only this, the land, which} has been allotted for construction^{of bus stand,does not have a} single drop of water and^{the conversion has already takenplace} and the conversion order^{has been passedby the appropriate} authority. Therefore, thus in^{larger public interest, the smaller} public interest and the^{personal interest have to pave path for} the iarger^pubiic interest.

¶96

Resultantly, both the writ^{petitionsare dismissed.}

¶97

¶98

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

¶99

shall be no order as to costs_

¶100

SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// h-.'

¶101

SECTION OFFICER

¶102

¶103

Two CCs to cP FOR FINANCE AND PLANN|NG, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶104

Two CCs to G.P FOR IRRIGATION AND COIVTV AREA

¶105

-^{DEVEL_OPlVENT,High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]} 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One CC to SRl.SAl GANGADHAR CHAI\4ARTY, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRI.IM.V.HANUIMANTHA RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies

¶106

One spare copy

SA BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410212O22

1 E s tL i'a: .<br>co 031'1,\l 2[2 .-(,)

¶111

COMMON ORDER

¶112

W.P.(P.|.L) NO: 301 OF 2017

¶113

AND

¶114

W.P.NO.5553 0F 2018

¶115

DrsMrsstNG THE W.P (PtL) AND WRIT PETTTTON

¶116

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶117

,a f<0

J.Ravinder Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ravinder 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangali Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors, Vs G. Sudhakar Rao

Vaddadi Murali, Vs Union of India rep by its the Secretary

D. Ashok Kumar Vs The New And Renewable Energy Development Corporation Limited

The Ap STate Housing Corporation Limited, rep.by its Vs Y.Dayanand

M.Vijaya Kumar Vs Gundlapally Sreenu