Partly allowed

A Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023WA/951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Appeal No. 951 of 2023 found that a Single Judge's interim order was unjustified as it extended relief over land belonging to appellants, contrary to the scope of the contesting respondents' pending claim. The bench modified the interim order to restrict possession directions only to Sy.No. 743 AS.

What did the court decide?

Interim orders passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No. 25111 of 2023 modified to confine relief only to Sy.No. 743 AS.

A Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCIOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 951 OF 2023

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 1110912023, in W.P.No.2S111 of 2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

A Venkatesh, S/o A. Peeraiah, Aged about 55 years, Business, R/o.H.No.1213-1215, Franklin Villa, St. No. 10, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶11

A Yijaya Bhaskar, S/o A. Peeriah, Aged about 48 years, Business, R/o.H.No.'1-8-49/2, Plat No. 173, Street No.8, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Lane No 5A, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶12

.....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

The District Collector, tMedchal - ft,,lalkajgiri District.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, tr4alkajgiri Division, Malkajgiri.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ivledchal - IMalkajgiri District.

¶18

....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4 lN W.P.No.25111ot 2023

¶19

Cheruku Shiva Reddy, S/o Cheruku Venkata Reddy, Aged about. 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.3-148, Baba Nagar Colony, Street No.1, Narapally Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal - tvlalkajgiri District.

¶20

V Sami Reddy, S/o V. Papi Reddy, Aged about 59^years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o H No. 12-57, Hasanparthi Village And lvlandal, Warangal District.

¶21

.....RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS lN W.P.No.251'l1 of 2O23

¶22

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition tJnder Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the afl'idavit 'iled in support of the^{petition,the High} Court 'nay^{be pleasedto} suspend the lrterim Order dated^{1110912023 passedby Single Judge of thrs} Court in W.P.1.,1o.25111 of^{2023pending disposal of this} '^/rit^{appeal in the} interest of^ju stic.e.

¶24

Counsel for Appellants :^SRI CHALLA^GUNARANJAN

¶25

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

¶26

Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6^{: SRI MOHAMMAD ZUBAIRAKRAM} The Court made the following Judgment:-

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Appeal No,951 of 2023

¶30

JUDGMENT: lPer^{t IL,t)btcsn,rLlsttce Abhtnarut KurLorsttrt,ir)}

¶31

Aggrieved by the interlocutory ordcrs dated 11.09.2023 in W.P.No.25111 of 2OO23 passcd by the Icarned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeerl is tiled

¶32

Hcard Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learncd counsel Ibr the appcllants and thc lcarned Govcrnment Pleadcr for Ilevenue appcaring lor respondent Nos. I to 4 and Mr. Mohammad Z:ubair Akran, lcarned counsel for the contesti ng respondents.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are the owners of agriculture lanC admeasuring Ac.3.20 gts in Sy.No.740l2, Ac.3.20 gts 1n ln Sy.No.739/AA2/2 and Ac.2.O7 gts Sy.No.739/AAl1 l2 of Korremula village, Ghatkesar Mandal, thc then Ranga Reddy District (now MedhcalMalkajgiri District). 'I'he appellants have submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer lo

¶34

mutatc aLl tl-rcir namcs ald the lle vcr-ruc Divisionzrl OtTicer ivas plcersr:d to mutate thc lti'llt)r.rsj ol the appellantr; in the Revenue records. 1'ltcre.alter, the contesting{ respondents have filed W. P. No.2 5 l. 1 i o[ 2022 contend ing tlrat the Revenue i)irzisior zti Cftrcer has error-r,:ously ente red the names ol l.he apl rellants in Iicvcrrue Ilecords and the1, u.ere clairring orvnership of 2OO sq.1,cis ol land situated rn Sy.No./43 and they ha-ve also subrni Ltcrl an zrpplication to mutatc thc r iules in their P.ev<:nue Records, and as such, u'ithr'rut giving a1ly oppor-tun ity to the contesting re spondr:nts, the-y, h.ave fi1ed the subject writ petition before this Ccrurt ald thc l<:arned Single Judge at the admission stage itself vvas pleased to grant interim dircctions in favour of the contenting respondents by dire<:ting the appellants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of contesting respondents' land adrneasuring Ac.3.20 gts in Sy.No.74O/2, Ac. 3.20 in Sy.No.739/ AA2/2 & Ac.2.O7 in Sy.No.739,/ AAI ll2. The learned sir-rgle Judge has mechanically gr:lnted the intertm clirections in favour of the contesting

¶35

AKS,J & RR,; ., 1\ir⁽⁾⁵¹ lr I i

¶36

I i I ! !

¶37

rcsl)ondents u.ithout appreciating the fact that tl-re contesting respondents were claiming their land ur S1'.No.743. But the learned Single Judge has passed interim directions in respect of Sy.No.74Ol2. 3y.7391AA/2. Admittedly, the land in Sy.No.740i2 and Sy.No.739lAAl2 & Sy.No.739 /AAIU 2 belongs tc the appellants and the learned Single Judge has granted relief more than what the contes[ing re s po ndents were seeking. Therefore, appropri:rte orders be passed in the writ appeal by confining the interim directions in respect of Sy.No.743 AS being claimed by the contesting respondents and modily the interim orders 1n respect of Sy.No.74O l2 and Sy.No.739lAAl2 & Sy.No.739lAA/ I l2 which beiongs to the appellants.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondents contended that the appellants have got their names mutated in the Revenue Records, even though, the claim of the contesting respondents was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the

¶39

Revcnue^{()fficcr rrithcut givil',g anv o[]i)ol'tLttlil'j"lti tl.''t} conLr:stii'r1z lcsponclerlts^{had nrutatedthe nar'les of tire} appeliants '^{r\ggrir:vedb5' the same' thc ( i)ntcstinq} responck:r ts^{have allll ozrcirecl thls co urtztncl the} learned Srnglc^{.Iudge lt'as jusiified in grar-rtir] ir ilrtcrirn} clirections in^{lavour o1 tire ctlntesting resl:onden-rs'} Therciorc, tht:re^{are no me; its in the r'r'r't a'i>pe:rland} thc salrr: s^{lizrbleto bc disrnisscd'}

¶40

S.^{'l'his (lourthavir,g cclnsidered thretrv:ri} submissions made^{bv tlre partics is of thc r;ic'v tl'rat the} contcstinpS^{t csporrcle tlt':; \rcre <:laimingintr:riot:uron7} relj.ef lr LA.No. L^{t'tf 2O?ll in l-t:spcctof Sv Nc'743' l:ut} the leanred Singlc^{.-IudgeLrad gr:atrtedint<:rjur} dire<;tions in^{respeot of} Sy No'/7aO/2^and Sy.No.739rlAA/2^{& Sy.No .739} /AAll l2'^{Therefore'the} learrted Single^{Judgc was not justihed ingrar-rting} intenm clircctions^{inrespecl olSy'No 7aO/2and'} Sy.No.73!r/AA/2^{&' Sv.No -739IAAlll2'lheretbre'the} interim orders^{passed by thc learned single 'Judge are} modified confining^{the rclief of thet;ontesting}

¶41

AKs,J & RRN, ] !!a 95l lal ll

¶42

I l

¶43

respondents only to the Sy.No.743 AS WAS being claimed in the interlocutory application submitted bv the contesting respondents.

¶44

6 With the above said observations, the Writ Appeal 1S disposed of, however, it is made clear that the appellant"s shall file counter in the main case and the learned Single Judge will consider afresh the expanle interim orders which were grated on 11.09.2023 as expeditiously as possible. No costs

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending

¶46

if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

//rRUE coPY// "'.iB,-H#Y!+HhA l/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

To 1. The Principal^{Secretary, RevenueDepartment'Secretariat'State of} Telanoana at^HYderabad'

¶49

qi*ti,ir":,reansanaa

¶50

i.liEt:l:*:,#fr{+[f,flitfl14f,{lgi'fu Hyderabad or the State^of

¶51

s it"t".iiJ"^officer,Non -^{Service Section' High Court f'}

¶52

Telanoana at^HYderabad'

¶53

Telanoana at^HYderabad'

¶54

, iii8'i6lio"cilFor.^{n""n'",Hish court for the state of relansanaat} Hvderabad. [OUTI

¶55

s ijl':,"b?^i; $a 9.r, ir^r, r 9. One CC^{to Sri Mohammac} "^{yt' f I[:l] i-t:"f :n l,?!jiSlo r r} "

¶56

10.Two^{CD CoPies}

j I ! i I

I ll

I ,il l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.951 of 2023

.,/, ,ii - .i.-
:.,.<br>1 ', 0[1 ?Ml
1r-...t -
'--: .: -

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE W.A

¶68

WITHOUT GOSTS.

¶69

tirYtio "ffi6

A Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Venkatesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narra Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Utkur Sumathamma Vs The State of Telangana

The Engineer-in-Chief, Vs J. Haribabu S/O J. Ramakrishna

M.Vishnu Yadav Vs Govt. of India

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, Vs Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

G.S.Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 others