Allowed

Kala Praful Jain v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Dec 2022WP/5849/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana addressed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary dispossession of petitioners from land plots. The Court observed that where a genuine dispute on title exists, the respondents must follow due process of law before interfering with possession, holding the writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property unless they follow due process of law.

Kala Praful Jain Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5849 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kala Praful Jain, S/o Nemichand Jain, aged about 40 years, Dornakal Village, Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District.

¶9

K Na-rsimha Swalny, S/o Venkat Narsaiah, aged about 59 years, Rl/o H.No.31-178, Kakatiya Colony, Warangal, Warangaf District.

¶10

Kala Mahaveer Jain, S/o Nemichand Jain, aged about 45 years, Ryo Dornakal Village, Domakal Mandal, Warangal District.-

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶16

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

¶17

R4 is impleaded as perC.O. dt.1311D12022 in t.A. No. 1t2o1t(2A711t2O17)

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to disposses the Petitioners from PIot No.s 2, 3, and 4 in Sy.N0.231lE of Ballepally Village(Gram Panchayat), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of Natural Justict and in violation of Article 14 and- 21 of lhe constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents not to disposses the petitioners from plot No.2, 3, and 4 Sy.N0.231lE of Ballepally Village(Gram panchayat), Khammam Urban Mandal. Khammam District.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 7270 OF 2013)

¶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 direct the respondents not to disposses the Petitioners from Plots No.2 3, & 4 in Sy.N0.231lE of Ballepally Village(Gram Panchayat), Khammam Urban Mandal. Khammam District.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI FOR SRI SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5849 of 2013 ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess and the petitioners from plot Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Survey No.23l /E of Ballepally Village (Gram Panchayat) Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owncrs and possessors of aforesaid propert5r having purchased the same under registered sales and also claims to have constructed houses thereon. It is further case of thc petitioncrs that when the possession of the vendors of the petitioncrs was sought to be disturbed by the District Collector, Khammam and the Executive Engineer of Irrigation De partment, they approached the competent Civil Court and filed suits in O.S.No.728 and 73O of 1996 and the said suits u,cre decreed in favour of the vendors of the petitioners by judgment and decree, dated O6.04. i999 restraining the District

¶29

¶30

Collector from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property. While things stood thus, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents herein, without following any due process of law and without issuing any notice to the petitioners, trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject plots and to demolish the houses existing thereon. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached this Court.

¶31

When the matter came up for hearing on 27.02.2013, this Court granted status quo in all respects including dispossession, raising of construction, creation of third party rights, alienation, changing the nature of the land etc.

¶32

It is the case of the respondents that though the petitioners arc claiming the subject plots in Survey No.23l under registered document, constructed house in survey No.13 of Khanapuram Village and surveyor also submitted a report to that effect- It is further contended that the respondents have no objection if the petitioners is making construction of house or continuing in posscssion of the subject plots situated in Survey No.23 l. However, no action appears to have taken by the respondents by following due process of law to dispossess or demolish the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is making a

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

lrarned 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 anothert, wherein it was held as under:

¶36

"The conspectus of facts in the instant case justilies 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 and Z 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 Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the prop€rty, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from rvhom the respondents claim to have purchased it.^'[he question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Covernment as a result of acquisition and the furttrer 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 tre, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, lhe respondents cannot be evicted summarily."

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made on either side

¶38

r1lo8ll l Sr-rprcrnc Court Cases l-].1

¶39

¶40

and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that in case if the respondents have any claim and right over the land, over which the petitioners are in possession, it is for the lssp6nclsnts to follow due process of law and then take action in accordance with law. But, the respondents instead of following the same, they have so far not initiated €my 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 considered 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 subject property.

¶41

In the light ot the above, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interl_ere with the possession of the petitioner over the s ubject propertlz. In case, if the respondents intend to take any action, they shall strictly follow the due process of law.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending tn this writ petition shall stand closed There shall be no orcler as to costs

¶43

sD/- K. VENKATAH ASS ,'STANT'RffIS-TRAR //TRUE COPY// To sEcr(6fil.oFFtcER 1 The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam, Government of Telangana. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam Districl

¶44

The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban lrlandal, Khammam District 4. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana,

¶45

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

One CC to SRI SUBBA RAO KORRAPATT, Advocate tOpUCI

¶47

Two CD Copies

PSK. CJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211212022

ORDER

WP.No.5849 of 2013

1 E I4 ,t
<br>4,i
o-
,L B J All ?[?3 al
t)
I
! t;- -;r^1^r" )

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

(,\ :-\ 0
coQ' €5
G)
6

Kala Praful Jain v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kala Praful Jain 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

K.Surender Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Moodu Aruna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh