Disposed

Redapangu Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana And 7 Others

Telangana HC16 Mar 2022WP(PIL)/40/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL alleging encroachment and illegal sale of Government land by private cemaries. Acknowledging State actions regarding possession and pending litigation, the Court directed authorities to conclude proceedings and ensure no further encroachment or transfer occurs without due process.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to conclude proceedings on Government land encroachments and sales positively within three months; ensured no further encroachment or transfer without due process of law.

Redapangu Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana And 7… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} THE HON,BLE^{SRIJUSICT}%HINANDKUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION^{(PlL) NO: 40 OF 2020}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Redaoanou Venkateswarlu,^{S/oChinthaiah.Aged} about 50 years, occubatidn Aqriculture,^{R/ o. PedaveeduVillage'} Mattampally Mandal, Suryipet DistriCt,^{Telangana State - 508001'}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue} Deoartment. Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶11

Th; District Collector,^{Suryapet District at Suryapet} - 5. iii; R;i;;e-oiriiioirat^{oifiber, survapet Division, Survapet District} +. The Tahasildar,^{Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District} 5 The Villaoe Revenue Officer,^{Mattampally Village,}

¶12

; ili." ii;;?;i i C"rint^{Fi"tbrv,lt/att'ampattv.Survapet District'Rep bv its} Ivlanaoino Director.

¶13

z ivi[.sisi^{Ce-menis private Limited, Mattampally, SuryapetDistrict Rep'by} its Managing Director.

¶14

s rr,lli. Ar5re6*ari cements^{private Limited, Mattampally,suryapetDistrict.} Rep. by its Managing^Director.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

PetitionunderArticle226ofconstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated^{in the Affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may;be} pleased to issue a writ, order or^{Direction, more particularly one in the nature of} writ of lr/andamus, declaring,^{the acts of the Respondents in not taking any} action on the representations^{made by the petitioner131612019, 011712019and} 2gtst2olgaddressedtotheRespondents2to5actionagainsttheRespondents 6toSwhohasgrabbedtheGovernmentlandnearlyAc.S0-00gtsinSy.No'307' 540and54'lsituatedatPedaveeduvillage,Mattampallylr'landal'Suryapet District, in collusion^{withthe revenue authorities,as illegal and arbitrary and} consequently to direct the^{respondentsherein to take appropriateaction on the}

¶17

O1t7l2}1g^{and 291512O19 and protectthe} above^{representations131612019'} lands from^{illegal encroachmentofthe} above^{mentionedGovernment} respondents^{6 to I herein'}

¶18

lA NO:^{1 OF 11020}

¶19

petition under section^{151 cpc praying that. in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{fitedin suppf,rt'i'titi"[li't'"' in" rlgn courtmav be pleasedto} direct the^{of icial respond""ttt" tt"fi illegalencroactrmentsof the Government} tands nearlv^{Ac 80 - oogtt'l"n'5vr'rtiiili]sao.a1d5^ar situatedat Pedaveedu} villaoe. Mattampalty^{lvtandai''6'iv"p"tDistrict'} -sale^{of the same by the} IJ!iilo;;[;^{t'#, i"noing tn" o'tio'uof the mainwrit petition}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI KARUNAKARREDDY}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1 to 5: ADVOCATEGENERAEL/GPFOR}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'7:SRI AVINASH DESAI}

¶23

Counsel^{fcr the Respondent Nos'6 & 8: None Appeared}

¶24

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶25

¶26

THE HO^N'BLF1 THE CHIEF JU^{STICESATISHCHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HON,BLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR S} HAVILI WRIT PETI^{TION(PIL) No.40of 2020}

¶27

QRDER,^{1r- tr'"Hon'bte *EchiefJusnce sdnshct@ dra shatna)}

¶28

The^{present writ petition(public interestlitigation) has} been^{filed by the petitioner statingthat the Governmentland'} admeasuring^{Acs'SO'OO,inSurvey Nos'307' 540 and 541} situated^{at PedaveeduViliage' Mattampally Mandal' Suryapet} District,hasbeenencroachedbyrespondentNos.6to8andis being sold^{to other persons' It has been stated that the State} Government^{is not doing anything in the matterin respect of} valuable^land.

¶29

¶30

A detailed^{and exhaustivecounter affidavit has beenfiled} on behalf^{of respondent Nos lto 5'The counter affidavit} reveals that^{the land admeasuring Ac'4533 guntas in Survey} No.54O,^{whichas per the allegation in the writ petition is} encroached^{by M/s' KamakshiCernents' was in fact assignedin} favour of^{25bene{iciaries ancl those beneficiarieshave} surrendered^{their rights in respectof the land on the ground} that the land^{isnot fit for cultivationThe Tahsildar'} Mattampally,^{acceptedtheir surrendervide order dated} 30.09.2008^{and their pattas were also cancelledlt has further} been stated^{that the then RevenueInspector was directed by the}

¶31

¶32

Tahsildar to hand over the possession of the said land to M/s. Kamal<shi Cements Ltd. and it was accordingly handed over under a panchanama. The counter affidavit further reveals that the action initiated by the Tahsildar was found to be contrary to the nrles and now the State Government has resumed the possession of the entire land admeasuring Ac.45.33 guntas in Survev No.540 under the provisions of the A.p. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977. The counter affidavit further reveals thar certain villagers have later on encroached the aforesaid land and have obtained pattadar pass books in the year 200g. Action was initiated against those encroachers also and the Revenue Divisiona_l Officer, Kodad, has initated proceedings dated 15.06.2020 to take possession of the land in accordance with law.

¶33

¶34

Therefore, in respect of the aforesaid fact, which relates to encroachers, Bhukya Devuji S/o. Sangra, Bhukya Saidulu S/o. Bhichya, Bhukya pulsingh S/o. Lakupathi, Ajmeera Srinu S/o. Hunya and Ajmeera Saidulu S/o. Hunya, the respondents shall conclude the proceedings at an early date. It is made clear that the State Government shall rrot transfer the land to any person without following due process of law i.e., either by way of auction, or by way of tender, or by way of any transparent procedure.

¶35

¶36

In respect of land in Survey No.541 of Pedaveedu Village, it has been stated in the counter alfidavit that it is a Government land. It has also been stated that a list of Government lands, which includes the land in Survey No.541, has been communicated to the Sub-Registrar, Huzurnagar, not to register any sale deed in respect of those lands. However, one Smt. Rathikindi Laxmamma has sold the land to Mr. Bandi Raghava Reddy to an extent of Ac.4.23 guntas in Survey No.541, which was assigned to her vide document No.3346/2010 dated 17.O9.2OlO and document No.3775l2010 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of third parties. The purchaser Bandi Raghava Reddy S/o. Narsi Reddy is in possession of the land and action has been initiated against the purchaser in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4.23 guntas in Survey No.54 1 of Pedaveedu Village, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District, which is a Government land. Therefore, the respondents are directed to conclude the proceedings positively within three months lrom today in respect of the aforesaid land.

¶37

¶38

It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that certain lands were assigned in favour of Gundla Somiga S/o. Ramiga and Vemula Padma W/o. Subba Rao under the freedom lighter category and they have alienated the land in different locations- - and boundaries contrary to the boundaries mentioned in their

¶39

certificates The lands were alienated in favour of some realtors and action has been taken in the matter bv the State Governrnent and now they are under the control of the Revenue Departrllent

¶40

It has been further stated l1t the counter affidavit that the land in Survey No.3O7 to an extent of Ac.3.1g guntas and Ac.13.20 guntas in Survey No.2gg of pedaveedu Village was encroached by M/s. sagar cements. It has been stated that land to an extent of Ac.0.34 guntas and. Ac.2.24 guntas in Survey No.307 was assigned in favour of Redapangu Janu S/o. Saidaiah and Ac.2.24 guntas in favour of Redapangu Bhiksham S/o. Gopaiah by the Tahsildar, Huzurnagar, under ceiling lands. The assignees expired and the lands were transferred in favour of their wives. The said lands were aiienated iater on in favour of Sammidi Aruna and Sammidi Anand Reddy vide registered document No.l351/ 199g 14.09.i998 and document No. 198/2001 dared 25.O1.2001. The matter was enquired by the Tahsildar, Mattampalli, and the iands rvere resumed vide order dated 17.06.2O13 under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (pOT) Act, l97Z and now the same is vacant. However, on appeal the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, has passed an order dated 19.07.2014

¶41

¶42

stating that the resumed land is covered with mines and minerals and has been leased out on 13.3.2008.

¶43

Meaning thereby, the State has certainly taken action in the matler. Therefore, in the considered opinion ol this Court, as the Government land has to be protected by the State, the State is directed to ensure that no further encroachment takes place over the Government land and the Gove rnment land is not transferred to any person without following due^process of^law.

¶44

With the aforesaid, the writ petition (public^interest litigation) disposed of.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^stand

¶46

closed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶47

\ SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1 The, Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of} Telangana Hyderabad. 2 The D-istrict Collector, Suryapet^{District at Suryapet} - 3 fne Revenue Divisional^{Oifiber, Suryapet Division, Suryapet District} 4 The Tahasildar,^{IvlattampallyMandal, SuryapetDistrict} E The Village Revenue Officer,^{lt4attampallyVillage,} . - -. . ^. 6 One CC [o SRI KARUNAKAR^{REDDY. Advocate} [oPUC] 7 One CC to SRI AVINASH^{DESAI'Advocate} IOPUC] 8 io CCs to the Advocate^{General, High Courtfor the State of Telangana} tourl I to CCs to the GP for^{Revenue,HighCourt for the State of Telangana'} tourl '10 Two C.D, CoPies. 1 1 . One Spare Copy. [,,IRC

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610312022

ORDER

WP(PIL).No.40 of 2020

¶56

..'
o
LL
$-
t-
d-
f
i-' ., :,.--./
\3

¶57

DrsPosrNG oF THE WP (PtL) WITHOUT COSTS

Redapangu Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana And 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Redapangu Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana And 7 Others

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

K. Sammi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sharada Dondlapally Vs Pittala Venkataiah

Union of India Vs Kota Suvarna

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priya Reddy and another Vs Ganta Buchiram Reddy and 5 Others

Kingshuk Nag, Vs The Chief Election Commissioner

M/s. Krans Projects Private Limited, Vs The South Central Railway (Scr)