Disposed

Sirigiri Sammaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Feb 2022WP/843/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the demolition order and acquisition of land for constructing a Tahasildar office. The petitioners argued lack of acquisition proceedings and compensation violated Article 300-A. The court held that eviction cannot proceed without a Section 7 order, pending inquiry under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act.

What did the court decide?

No order was passed on the writ petition; petitioners not to be dispossessed until Section 7 eviction order is made.

Sirigiri Sammaiah Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION N Ot 843 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sirigtri Sammaiah, S/o.Ramulu, Aged about 42 yearc, Occ. Agriculture, RJo.Tarigoppula village and Mandat,Jingaon District (Oid Wdrangal Disirict).

¶8

Chennuri Vijay Kumar, S/o.Narayana, Aged about 32 yearc, Occ. Agrjculture, Ryo.H.No.8-216, Tarigoppula village and Mandal, Jangaon District (Old Warangai District).

¶9

Siriglri Ravinder, S/o.Sirigiri Gurulingam, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fyo.H.No.8-232, Tarigoppula village and Mandal, Jangaon District (Old Warangal District).

¶10

Sirigiri Dass, S/o.Ramulu,Aged about 36 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fyo.H.No.'1057, Kammaripeta, Tarigoppula village and Mandal, Jangaon District (Old Warangal District).

¶11

..,PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

2 The Districl Collector, Jangaon District at Jangaon, (Erstwhile Warangal District).

¶15

3 The Joint Collector, Jangaon District at Jangaon.

¶16

4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Jangaon District.

¶17

5 The Tahasildar, Tharigoppula l,4andal, Jangaon District.

¶18

RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to l,4andamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire the land admeasuring Ac 0.039ts of the 1st petitioner, land admeasuring Ac 0.02gts of the 2nd petitioner, land admeasuring 0.01gts of the 3rd petitioner and land admeasuring 0.01gts of the 4th^petitioner located in Sy.No.275 situated at Tharigoppula village and Mandal, Jangaon Dislrict by demolishing the structures for the purpose of construction of New Tharigoppula Tahasildar Office without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without paying any compensation as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the land admeasuring Ac 0.03gts of the lst petitioner, Iand admeasuring Ac 0.02gts of the 2nd petitioner, land admeasuring 0.01gts of the 3rd petitioner and land admeasuring 0.01gts of the 4th petitioner located in Sy.No.275 situated at Tharigoppula village and Mandel, Jangaon District by demolishing the structures

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitlon, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the their respective land admeasuring Ac 0.03gts of, land admeasuring Ac 0.029ts, land admeasuring 0.01gts and land admeasuring 0.01 gts located in Sy.No.275 situated at Tharigoppula village and N,4andal, Jangaon District including demolition of the

¶22

structures of the^petitioners without land acquisition^{proceedingsor} paying compensation,^pending disposal of the above writ^petition and^pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondehts: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶27

WRITPETI'IION No.843 of 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners and the leamed Assistant Goverrrment Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶30

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the l"' petitioner admeasuring Ac.0.03 gts, land of the 2"d petitioner admeasuring Ac.0.02 gts, the land of the 3'd petitioner admeasuring Ac.0.01 gts and the land of the 4'h petitioner admeasuring Ac.0.0l gts in Sy.No.275 situated at Tharigoppula Village and Mandal, Jangaon District and trying to demolish the structures therein and proposing to acquire the said lands for construction oi New Tharigoppula Tahsildar Officer without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without paying compensation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A ofthe Constitution ol' India.

¶31

lnter a/ia it is stated that the petitioners have^purchased their respective lands under unregistered sale deeds dated 14.08.2010, 01.06.2012, and 08.08.2019 respectively. They have constructed small houses and they are in physical^possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, notice dated 02.11.2021 was issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905^(for short, 'the Act') calling^uponthe petitioners to vacate the lands in their occupation within ten days. In response thereto, the petitioners submitted reply dated^02.11.2021

¶32

¶33

stating that they. have purchased the lands in question under unregistered sale deeds and started construction of the houses and erected pillars.

¶34

There is an allegation against the petitioncrs that they have encroached the Government land and in that connection, notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued calling upon them to vacate the lands in their occupation. In this background, the claim of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents are trying to dispossess them and that they are entitred for compensation of the lands in the event they are dispossessed without any notice.

¶35

It is submitted by learned counsel fbr the petitioners that so far the eviction orders have not been passed under Section 7 of the Act.

¶36

In view of the above, there is no merit in the clairr of the writ petitioners. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the property in question untii 1rnal orders are passed under Section 7 of the Act by taking into consideration their explanation submitted to notice under Section 6 of the Act. The orders shall be passed by respondent No.5 tbrthwith without influenced by any of the observations made in this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to

¶37

costs.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ..-.

¶39

//rRUE copy// ^r.,.r.^r^ll}$X:. ro,

¶40

' Il:Jrlffif"'^{secretary,state of rerangana, Revenue} Deparrment, secretariat,

¶41

The District Collector, Jan

¶42

3 rhe Joint co,ector, ,",r"::T,":;:::l:::::::", (Erstwhire waransar Disrri*)

¶43

¶44

Ihe Reyenue Di vrsional Officer, Jan 5. fhe fahasi/dar, Tharigopptrla gaon , Jangaon District I Mand al, Ja 6. One CC to Sri SOA/AVARAPU ngaon District SA TYANARAYANA 7. fwo CCs to Gp for REVENUE ,Hig ,AdVo cate IOpUCJ 8. Two CD Copies h Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTj rsn t*r.

HIGH^COURT

\ DATED:07/0212022

l
I
<br>t
.!
t 1 t[fl ?nn
'.)
(

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.843^{of 2022}

¶52

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶53

WITIIOUT COSTS

Sirigiri Sammaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirigiri Sammaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K. Bala Kistamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kammari Manemma Vs The State of Telangana

Viswanatham Vs The State of Telangana

Ale Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Ajay Bharatan, Hyderabad. Vs Union of India, Home,New Delhi, and 2 Otrs.

Sriram Shankaravva, Vs The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary