Remanded

DobbalaSuguna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Mar 2022WP/5819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging encroachment and removal of fencing on the petitioner's land. The Court, protecting the petitioner's interest pending a survey, directed the revenue authorities to conduct a survey and demarcation within 30 days of receiving an F-Line application from the petitioner, staying interference with possession until then.

What did the court decide?

Order directing Respondents 1 to 3 to conduct survey and demarcation of petitioner's land within 30 days of receiving F-Line application and refrain from interfering with possession pending survey.

DobbalaSuguna Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5819 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

DobbalaSuguna, D/o.lr/allaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o.H.No.1108, Arnakonda Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The District Coilector, Karimnagar District, T.S.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagdr Division and District, T.S.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Choppadandi trlandal, Karimnagar District. T.S.

¶14

The Station House Officer, P.S. Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in entering and demolishing the fencing in the Petitioner's land without verifying the records or conducting a survey and thereafter seeking to encroach the Petitioners Iand without notice or in accordance with the procedure enumerated under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution of lndia and further refrain the Respondents from entering into the Petitioner's land except in accordance with law and the procedure enumerated under the Land Acquisition Act and further direct the Respondents to conduct a survey and fix boundaries of the Petitioners land in accordance with revenue records.

¶17

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition Under Section 15'1 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 interfere with the peaceful possession of the Petitioners land in Sy.No.493/C, admeasuring.Ac.0.23 Gts and Ac.0.03 Gts in Sy.No. 494 and Ac.0.'1^'1 Gts in Sy.No. 64714 at Arnakonda Village, Chopadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.M.SRIKANTH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.s : GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶24

V.P.No.5819 OF²⁰²²

¶25

OIIDER:

¶26

This writ petition^{is filed seeking the following relief:}

¶27

"to^{issue a writ, order or direction panicularly oncin the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the action of the respondentsin} entering and demolishing^{thefcncingin the pelitioncr's Iandwithoul} vcrifying the rccords or conducting^{a suruey and thereafter seeking to} encroach thc^petilio er's^{landwilhoutnoticeor i0 accordancewilh} the procedure enumerated^{underlaw as illegal. arbitraryandviolativc} ol Ailticlcs 14. 21 an(l 300-A^{of lhc Constittrlionol lndinand t'urthcr} retiain the rcsponclents^{tiollrenterinSinto thcpetilioner"sland cxccpt} in accordance^{with la'and rhc procedurc enulneratcdunder the} Land Aequisition Act and^{funher (lircct lhe respondcnlst) conducl a} survey tncl fix lroundarics^{oirhepetitioner's land in accordancewilh} rcvcnue r'econls^{irnd pass suchothcr orclcror orders maycleemlitand} propcr irr thc circurnit:rnccr^{<tf tlreca'ic. '}

¶28

Heard Sri M.Srikanth,^{learnedcounsel for the} Petitioner' Iearned'Assistant^{GovemmentPleader for RevenueapPearing} for respondents 1 to^{4 and learned GovemmentPleader for} Home appearing^{for respondent No.5.}

¶29

Learned counsel aPPearing^{for the petitioner contended} that father of the petitioner^{Yiz., Yashoda Il4allaiah was owner} and possessor of^{land admeasuringe.'O-Z:gts in Sy.No'a93/C,} Ac.0-03 gs in Sy.No.494,^{and Ac.O-11gts in Sy.No'647/A'}

¶30

¶31

situated at Arnakonda Village. After death of his father, he made several applications to respondent No.4 making necessary entries in the pattedar pass books and in the revenue records. Leamed counsel funher contended that when respondent No.4 along with respondent No.5 forcibly entered into the land of the petitioner and removed the fencing, the petitioner submitted a represenrarion dated 10.01.2027 to the respondents, but, no acdon has been taken thereon.

¶32

Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader contended that the petitioner is having patta lands in. several survey numbers including Sy.No.494 and under the guise of ownership and possessi6n, the petitioner is trying to encroach adjoining Govemment land. That appropriate direction be issued to the petitioner to submit F-Line application, which wotrld resolve the boundary dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. It is also contended that the land in Sy.No.494 has already been allotted to Anganwadi C-entre and if any interim order is granted that would delay construction of the Anganwadi Crntre.

¶33

Flaving considered the rival submissions made by the leamed counsel on either side, this Coun is of the view that interest of the petitioner needs to be protected untii survey of land of the petitioner is conducted.

¶34

Accordingly, the^\Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit F-Line application for survey of the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.0-21 gts in Sy.No.493lC Ac.0-03 gts in Sy.No.494, and Ac.0-11 gts in Sy.No.647/A, situated at Arnakonda Village. On receipt of such application, respondents 1 to 3 shall fonhwith take steps to expedite the process of survey and demarcation. The entire exercise shall be completed^withina period of 30 dap from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until sr,rrvey is conducted pursuant to the F-Line application submitted bythe petitioner,.r/dt//.t 4ro obtaining as on todayshali be maintained. No costs.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO N OFFICER

The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, Secretariat, Stateof} Telanoana. Hvderabad.

¶42

The District Cbllector,^{Karimnagar District,T.S'}

¶43

fh" n"r"rre^{oirisionalOfficerl Karimnagar Divisionand District,T'S'} +. fne fin"itOar, Choppadandi^{lvlandal,Karimnagar District T S'}

¶44

'-'C.o-lJ^'-

¶45

5 The Station House offic_er,p s. choppadandi Mandar, Karimnagar District. 6. Two CCs to Gp FoR REVENUE, Hisfi^-C;;,ii;; the State or r"[ns"n; rJ

¶46

Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶47

Two CCs to cp FOR HQyf , I1g.n Court for the State of Telangana at -

¶48

Hyderabad. [OUTtOne cC to sn"l.rr,a.snXer,r]i, na""iri" iodu6i ".

¶49

Two CD Cooies

¶50

One soare ioo,

s.A

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810312022

g STAI€
)e -' ,i'] ,
I \t l/,!
o
6,<br>,+
*
t

ORDER

WP.No.5819 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

@4(')
%ri

DobbalaSuguna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

DobbalaSuguna 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

B.Swapna Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Simra Constructions Vs State of Telangana.

Pudari shankar Vs State of Telangana

M. Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

Patakamudi Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Snehalatha Singh Vs The State of Telangana