Allowed

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/7017/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Telangana allowed the application challenging a Resumption Order passed by the Tahsildar under the Telangana Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Court quashed the order as arbitrary and violative of natural justice for denying the petitioner further time to submit objections after nearly four decades of peaceful possession.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned remission order dated 25.02.2016 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration.

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7017 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi, Wo late Bakka Chinna Gopaiah Age:70 years, Occ: Agriculture Rl/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶9

...PET|TIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶13

Kankanala Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu Age:26 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶14

Kankanala Radhamma, Wo Venkateswarlu Age:46 years, Occ: Housewife R/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist

¶15

...RESpONDENTS

¶16

Petition under^p-Iticle 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc. No. 8/685/2015 dl:25-2-2016 resuming the assigned land on the alleged contravention of S.3(2) of Andhra Pradesh Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules 2007, in respect of the land in Sy.No.255/3 to an extent of Ac.1-34 gts situated at Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal of Khammam Dist , is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of naturaljustice and consequently set aside the order and further direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in any manner in respect of above referred property

¶17

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO:8941 OF 2016)

¶18

Petitlon 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 Suspend the operation of the order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.8/685/2015 dt.25-2-2016, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶19

lA NO: I OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstdnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased pleased to receive the documents i.e., (1) Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 58112012 dt- 101712018⁽²⁾ Judgment and Decree^passed in^46512012 dt- 281612017 (3) Application dl- 31912022^(Telugu and translation copy) W.P. No.7017/2016

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVM P. NO: 150'l OF 2016)

¶22

Between:

¶23

Kankanala Ra]eswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu Age:26^years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶24

Kankanala Radhamma, Wo Venkateswarlu Age:46^years, Occ: Housewife R/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶25

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.4&5

¶26

AND

¶27

'1. Smt.Bakka Lakshmi, W/o late Bakka Chinna Gopaiah Age:70 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶28

....PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶29

State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Revenue Divisional Officer. Khammam.

¶31

The Tahsildar Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist-

¶32

...RESPONDENTS/RESPON DENTS

¶33

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 vacate the interim orders^granted on 03-03-2016 in WPMP No. 8947/ 2016 in WP No. 70171 2016.

¶34

l"A. NO: 2 OF 2016 WVMP. NO: 2193 OF 2016

¶35

Between:

¶36

State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶37

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam.

¶38

The Tahsildar Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶39

, PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶40

¶41

1 Smt.Bakka Lakshmi, W/o late Bakka Chinna Gopaiah Age:70 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Kharimam bist.

¶42

...RESPONDNET/PETITIONER

¶43

Kankanala Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu Age:26^years," Occ: Agnculture R/o Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶44

Kankanala Radhamma, W/o Venkateswarlu Age:46 years, Occ: Housewife R/o Pallipadu Village, Konrerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶45

(Respondents 2&3 are not necessary parties to this petition)

¶46

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶47

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 vacate the interim orders dt: 03.03.2016 in WP.MP.No.8941 of 2016 in WP.No.7017 of 2016 and dismiss the writ petition

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.'lto3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5: SRI.J. SATYA PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶50

WRIT PSIITION NO.7O17 OF 2016

¶51

ORDER:

¶52

This Writ Petition is firled aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2016 wherein the land admeasuring Ac. 1.34 gts in Survey No.255/3Ga of Pallipadu^Village, Konijerla Mandal, was resumed from the^petitioner under Section 4 of the Telangana Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 ("the Act, 7977" for brevity).

¶53

A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that a notice in Form-fi dated 04.02.2016 was served on the petitioner on 06.02.2016 and having received the said notice, the petitioner claims to have filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.5288 of 2016 assailing the said notice and brought the same to the notice of the third respondent herein and requested for fifteen days' time for filing detailed objections in response to the notice dated 04.02.2016. But the third respondent, instead of granting 15 days' time as sought for by the petitioner, proceeded to pass the impugned order by stating that the petitioner failed to submit any explanation and presuming that the petitioner has no explanation to submit and

¶54

¶55

{

¶56

2 MSK,J v.P.NO.70170F 2016

¶57

that shc has violated the terms and conditions of the assignment patta.

¶58

In the counter affidavit filed by the thirti respondent, it is stated that the petitioner requested for 15 days time for submitting detailed explanation but ttre third respondent thought that no useful purpose would be served by granting time and proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶59

From the facts and circumstances, as noted above, this Court is of the considered. vie.r that the action of the third respondent in refusing to grant 15 days' time as sought for by the petitioner especially taking into consideration the fact that the subject land was assigned to the petitioner as early as in the year 1977 and proceedings under the Act, 1977 were initiated in the year 2016 ar.d passing the impugned order in hurried manner is totally arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of India.

¶60

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for considering the case afresh by putting the petitioner on notice and affording a reasonable opportunit5r and for^passing appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

¶61

{.,-

¶62

3 MSK,J w.P.NO.7017 0F2016

¶63

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶64

applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶65

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶66

Witness the Hon'ble the Chief Justice UJJAL BHUYAN, on This Thursday,The Fifteenth Day Of December, Two Thousand And Twenty Two

¶67

SD/.T.JAYASREE

¶68

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ( !-,

¶69

SECiION OFFICER

¶70

To,

¶71

The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, State ofTelangana, Hyderabad.

¶72

2- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam.

¶73

The Tahsildar, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶74

4, Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at HyderabadIOUT]

¶75

One CC to SRI, M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate toPUCI 6. One CC to SRI J. SATYA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC I 7. Two CD copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212022

ORDER

WP.No.7O17 ot²⁰¹⁶

,1- 1HE S 14 <br>o
ct) 2 3 ,rqn ?[?3 o
.L
^- 1, .
.-l/

¶84

ALLOWING THE^{WRIT PETITIONWITHOUTCOSTS}

¶85

rs6N'"=*

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi v. State of Telangana

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

B.Y. Patil Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.V.N. Singamohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

G. Gopichand and 3 others Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Neeradi Savitha Vs State of Telangana

Sri Mamilla Bheem Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Ssv Creations Vs The State of Telangana and 3others