Allowed

Chintala Pullaiah, v. Mr. Karnan, IAS and 2 others

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023CC/1848/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking to prevent state authorities from digging and lifting soil from his land without notice. The court directed authorities not to interfere with the land but allowed future action under due process. A pending contempt case was closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession or enjoyment of the land; no future action to be taken without following due process; contempt case closed.

Chintala Pullaiah, Vs Mr. Karnan, IAS and 2 others — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 I

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

AND

wP NO.39400 0F 2017:

Between:

Chintala Pullaiah S/ol-ate F?I]-rlr, Ag^gd 631ea.rq _Occ; Retired Emptoyee R/o Ftat No. 't02, 1st Floor, s.v.power"ptJri, dppr.iocflijtriii6ni.l""uoo, colony, Khammam Urban, Khammam Distric(^{-rr" '-}

AND

...PETITIONER

The Executi-v.e.[ngr1eer,, trrigation Departmentr , '. Khammam^{r'rurr'r,srrr} Urbanvrvqrr' Khammam district. Telangan6 state

¶15

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia pr"vin| that in the

¶16

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 high handed action of the respondents in trying to dig the petitioner land in Sy.No. 124 to an extent of Act. 1-25 guntas situated at Khanapuram Haveti, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam district to lift the soil for laying bund surrounding the Lakkaram lake/tank which is adjacent to the petitioner land without notice and without following due process of law, is.illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles, 14, 21

¶17

and 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently^{direct the respondents} not to interfere with the peaceful^possession and enjoyment^{of the petitioner} above said land

¶18

P Petition under Section^'151 CPC^{prayingthat in thecircumstancesstated}

¶19

in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto} DIRECT the respondents not^{to dig the soil and lift the same and not to interfere} in any manner from the^{petitioner Land in Sy.No. 124 to an extent of Ac. 1-25} guntas situated at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam^{Urban Mandal,Khammam} district^pending disposal^{of the Writ petition}

lA NO: 1 OF 2020:

:-'"

Between:

The State of Department TS Secretariat Bui

¶24

The District Collector,, state

¶25

The Revenue Dvisional officer,,^{Khammam Urban,'Khammamdistrict.} Telangana state

¶26

The Tahsildar,, Khammam Urban^{Mandal, Khammam district, Telangana} state

¶27

....PETITIONERS/RESPON^DENTYS

¶28

ABD

¶29

1 Chintala Pullaiah S/o Late Ramulu,^{Aged63 years,Occ; Retired Emplo-yee} R/o Flat No. 102, 1st Floor, S.V.PowerPlaza,^{Oppl.TDP District Office, UDOs} colony, Khammam Urban, Khammam^District

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

1. The Executive Engineer,, lnigation^{Department, Khammam} Urban, Kharnmam district. Telangana state (Respondent No.2 is not necessary^party to this^petition)

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition urlder Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated}

¶34

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt:22.11.2017 passed in WP.MP.No.4B86g of 2017 in W.P.No.3g4OO ot 2O17 anddismiss the writ petition

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. B. RAJESWARI

¶36

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶37

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: GP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD

¶38

CC NO: 1848 OF 2019

¶39

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to^'12 of Contempt of Courts Act to Punish the Respondents herein for willfully disobeying the Orders of the High Court dated 22.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.48869 ot 2017 in W.P.No.39400 of 2017.

¶40

Between:

¶41

Chintala Pullaiah,, S/o. Late Ramulu, aged 65 years Occ. Retired employee, R/o. Flat No. 102 1st Floor, S.V. Power Plaza, Oppl.TDP District Office UDOs Colony, Khammam Urban District

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

AND

¶44

Mr. Karnan, lAS, Working as District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam

¶45

Mr. Anurag Jayanthi,, Working as Revenue Divisional Officer Khammam Urban, Khammam District

¶46

Mr. Tella Srinivasa Rao, Working as Tahsildar Khammam Urban [Vlandal, Khammam District

¶47

.RESPON DENTS/CONTEMNORS

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. B. RAJESWARI

¶49

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶50

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR} WRIT PETITION^{No.394OO of 20L7} AND CONTEMPT CASE^{No.1848OF 2O19}

¶52

COMMON ORDER:

¶53

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitionerand learned} Government Pleader^{for Revenueand learnedGovernment Pleader} for Irrigation and^{commandAreaDevelopment Department.}

¶54

W.P.No.39400 of^{2017 is filecl seeking a writ of mandamus} to declare the action^{of respondentsin trying to dig the land of the} petitioner situatecl irr^{Survey No.124 to an extent of Ac'I'25} guntas situated at^{Khanapuram Haveli, Khammamurban} Mandai, Khammam^{District, and to lift the soil for layingbund} surrounding the^{Lakkaram Lake/Tank,which is adjacent to the} petitioner's land, as illegal^{and arbitraly.}

¶55

This Court, while admitting^{the writ petition on 22.1t.2OL7,} passed an interim ord.er^{directing the respondents not to dig the} soil and lift the san'Ie^{and not to interfere with the subject land} in any manner, pending disposal^{of the writ petition. Complaining} violation of the said ordet', the^{petitioner liled C.C.No.1848} of 2OL9.

,t' i i I I

i ir

I i I I i,

I i: I' i;iis fi! II I g II I I I

¶61

¶62

4 The respondents in c.c.No.lg4g of 2or9 filed counter affidavit seeking to vacate the said interim order, dated 22.tt.2017. In the said counter affidavit at paragraph No.3, it is stated as under:

¶63

u... the petitioner filed the writ petition alleging that his father Chinthala Ramulu, S/o. Veeraiah, was granted assignment to an extent of Ac.1.2s guntas in sy.No. r24 of Khanapuram Haveli of Khammam (urban) Mandal vide D'Dis'No.B l/4ss6/To, dated rr.oz.rgzo, for agriculture purpose, and prayed this Honble court to issue a writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the respondents not to dig the soil and lift the same, and not to interfere in any manner over the land in Sy.No.l24 to an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas situated at Khanapuram Haveli. This Honble court was pleased to grant interim orders in w.p.M.p.No.4gg6 9 of 2or1 in w'P'No.394oo of 2oLZ, dated 22.rr.2orz, directing the respondents not to lift the soil and interfere in any m€rnner over the land in Sy.No.l24, to an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas. The contention of the petitioner is that without informing to him, the respondent No.3 and his starf illegaily entered into his land on 06. t2.2olg, and removed the fencing and lift the soil and wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Honble court in W.P.M.P.No.48869 of 2OtZ ."

¶64

5' In the light of the categorical admission made in the counter affidavit about the assignrnent of the subject land in favour of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner succeeded the same on the demise of his father and the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue-rgcords, any action on the part of the ,..,#,%

¶65

¶66

respondents in trying to interfere with the subject land, without following due process of law, cannot be allowed. In the entire counter affidavit, there is no reference of any resumption proceedings or cancellation of the assignment etc., initiated by the respondent so far. In the absence of the proceedings for resumption of the land and taking over the possession of the petitioner, ofly action on the part of the respondents - revenue authorities in handing over the possession over the subject land to respondent No.5, cannot be accepted.

¶67

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land in any manner. However, this order will not come in the way of the respondents from taking any action by following the due process.

¶68

In view of the disposal of w.p.No.39400 of 2o!2, no orders need be passed in the contempt case and accordingly the contempt case is closed.

¶69

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition as well as the contempt case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

That the Rule Nisi has been made absolute with regard to W.P.No.39400 of 2O17

¶71

witness rHE H.N'BLE THE cHrEF JUsflcE UJJAL BHUYAN, on this Thursday, the second day of March, r*o-inou#; and rwenty Three.

¶72

SD/. M.MANJULA DEPUry //TRUE COPYII

¶73

To, 1 2^{$!!"E.{idi{,,isi#:fl ,ff;iltl} De pa rtment, state or reran ga na, rs '^{The District} corect6i, ft,H;ilil District Khammam, Terangana state

¶74

OFFICER

¶75

¶76

3' The Revenue .?ivisionar officer,, Khammam Urban, Khammam district. . i[i:+sfl:f,.:?l"n*;;';,",an Manda,, Kha mmam district, Telangana

¶77

s. ii.rt"er"artive Fn^i^o^- r__!

¶78

;m*'roffffi'*,nffiffiiil;;ffi

¶79

: trlr'Ef3ma; Rao' rahsirdar, Khammam urban Mandar, Khammam

¶80

,,i#}trilffifEiffi^;f,'i"H""$,,,'l"',8:",?,rr,inr?ia",,",,#

HIGH COURT

MSK,J

DATEDi 0210312023

tHE Sr4
L)
3 1 t{fifi ?ila

¶88

COMMON^ORDER WP NO: 39400^{OF 2017} AND cG NO.1848^{0F 2019}

¶89

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITIO} N & CLOSING THE CONTEMPT^CAS E

¶90

G0't''ffi

¶91

WITHOUT COSTS

Chintala Pullaiah, v. Mr. Karnan, IAS and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintala Pullaiah, v. Mr. Karnan, IAS and 2 others

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

M/S. Gel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad, and 6 Otrs. Vs the Sub-Registrar, R.R.Dist., and 3 Otrs.

Smt. Noorunnisa Begum Vs The Tahsildar, Asifanagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

Mr. L.P. Sashi Kumar Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Chintala Pullaiah , Vs The State of Telangana

Jangili Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Smt. Koppula Devi Bhavani Vs The State of Telangana