Disposed

Jillaboina Ramachandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2023WP/13120/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a landowner challenging inaction of forest and revenue authorities regarding his land in a notified reserve forest. The court permitted the petitioner to file an explanation to the show-cause notice within two weeks and directed respondents to consider it before taking further action.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to submit explanation to notice within two weeks; respondents directed to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon; status quo maintained.

Jillaboina Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13120 OF 2o21

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jillaboina Ramachandraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Rachakonda Village, Samasthanarayanpur Mandal, Bhuvanagiii yadadri District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department,

¶13

Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶15

The District Forest Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶16

The Forest Range Officer, Choutuppal, Bhuvanagiri Yadadri District.

¶17

5- The Tahsildar, Samasthanarayanpur Mandal, Bhuvanagiri Yadadri District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe 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 declaring the inaction of the Respondents herein in not considering the representation of the Petitioner dt. O4|O5/2O21 for conduct joint inspection and demarcation of Petitioner's agricultural land in Sy.No.273l468 to an extent of Ac.4.00 gts., situated in Samasthanarayanpur Mandal, Bhuvanagiri Yadadri District (formerly Nalgonda District), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Petitioners fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(t Xg) and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and to consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land in Sy.No.2731468 of Samasthanarayanpur Mandal, Bhuvanagiri Yadadri District (formerly Nalgonda District) pending joint inspection and demarcation of Petitioner's lands in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land in Sy.No.273l468 of Samasthanarayanpur Mandal, Bhuvanagiri Yadadri District (formerly Nalgonda District) pending^joint inspection and demarcation of Petilioner's lands in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: AGP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent No.S: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SR.EEIVIVAS RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.1312O of 2O2l

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition has been liled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 04.O5.2O21 to conduct joint inspection and demarcation of petitioner's agricultr.rral land to an extent of Ac.4.OO gts in Sy.No.273/468 situated in Samasthanarayanapur Mandal, Bhuvanagir Yadadri District (forrnerly Nalgonda District), as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 3OO-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from pcaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land, pending^joint inspection and dernarcation of his lands.

¶28

Heard Ms.Dina, learned counsel appearing for Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the^petitioner, learned Assistant Govcrnment Pleader for^{F orests} appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and^learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing^for respondent No.5.

¶29

¶30

T,r':r r- rt I r:ounscl for thc pctitioner sulrrnit r; Llrtrt thc pet itioncI i:i t l-rc ou-ne r and possessor of th e ai lric ultural land to ;r r r t' t(r11t of Ac.4.OO gts in Sy.No.273 /4bi siLuated at Sanr ii:i ll rnar-ziyanapur Mandal, Bhutar gi^-r Yzrdadri District I-1 l' t'r'spondenls without issuitrg iJr \ r)r,ticc ro the pctition< r, trling to dispossess hirn irom l lrr: jubject land.

¶31

4 . Pe r ' o Lf ra learncd Assistant Govt rn nrr: rrl l)lczrdcr sr-rbmil.. ilir.i t[-rc: subject land as clairncd b-y Lh<: 1>ciitic;ner is a part ol rotificd Rachakonda Reserve Forr:st and the pctlti()n 'r is not entitled to claim any ri5lhts or cr the propert\ . Il fu rther submits that the Disl r-t r.t [.'orr:st Oiirce r, Yrrrii:irr l3hongir Distrrct issued notic(l v ric Lr-.No. 1i7 I /2t)2O /^.;'.2,i;4, datcd 25.A2.2O21 ci;-r:,---inr1 the petitrrrn,'r- :rr r4l rll[q15 mentioned in the s-c-r( rro ir]c to subnrit^{,'xJrl: -rrrtion} within a pcriod of one vvcek zrlol g r.,'ith documcnts : s tc why they shall not be r:viclr<l lrom the srrbjer:l larrrl covered b5. Sy.No.273. He fultho srrbmits that thc I)(-rtir ()t-r(.r without submitting explanar't s.r;:ight au'a' :ll)l)r(,i ::lrcC this Court and flled tLre l)-L\clLt \'rit petiti()rr ;rnrl Irc r;ame is not maintainable undc' liru.

¶32

Hirvrr Lq r,'or sidere d 1hc rival submi:,sion,, nii rlc lty thc rcsPlc tir, perrtics and pcruscd the recc,rd. ,( r)rittccll;'-,

¶33

¶34

¶35

thc petitioner is claiming that he is owner and posscssor of thc agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4.OO gts in Sy.No,273/a68 sitlrated at Samasthanarayanapur Mandal, Bhuvangiri Yadadri District. As per the documents filed by the petitioner reveals that thc revenlle authorities mutated his name in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed.

¶36

In the counter affidavit the respondent No.3 stated that the subject land is part of notificd Rachakonda Reserve Forest and notification was published in A.p. Ga-z,ette No.4 l, dated 09.11.13S2 Fasli under the provisions of Hyderabad Forest Act, and the District Forest Officer, Yadadri Bhongir District issucd noticc vide Lr. No.lL7 I/2O2O/52,54, dated 25.O2.2O2t to the petitioner and others in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 12.33 gts in Sy.No.273 dirccting thcm to submit explanation as to why they shall not be evicted from the subject lands. It appears from the record that pctitioner has not submitted explanation to the said noticc.

¶37

Without going into the merits o[ thc casc, the writ petition is disposed o[ permitting the pctiriorlcr to submit

¶38

¶39

t:xpla rr:rt ir: I to thc notice vide Lr.No. 1 17 1 /'.)- )')o /52 ,54, rl:r tcrl il.s )')-.'.>-O21 issucd by District. Forcst Officer, Yaclartri [] tougir- District u,ittrin a pcriod ol' irur u,ccks [r orn I hc cl rl e of reccipt of a copy of this order :r,rd on such cxpLarru..rtio r, tlrc resltondcnts are dircctcd to ,)c,nsrdcr ilnd p:rss irpJ)r-( prizttc orders in accordance witl-r 111r.,,, 11,11[1i1.1 3 ;rt'riocl^{ol r ght u,ceks} thcrcaftcr. Till such tirn:t, Irotlr the I)irrlic^{iar c riir,:c:tccl} to maintain status^(lu(, 1l 1 ,rt :rlt-r':rcly tlis 1to s scr;s cl.

¶40

8, /tccor linp,lv, thc u,rit pctitiolt is <lisoo.;e ll ,r[_ No ordcr rs o rt()sls

¶41

,/\s a s(:qr,lcl thcreto, misceilaneou:; :ipJrJi::rlior-rs, if rrrr', plrtrlrr q in (his u,rit petition, shall strrnrls cl rrsr cl.

¶42

SO/- MOHD. S/\NAULLAH^ANSARI ASSI:;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I A----

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To .l The Prir cipal ;ecrotary, Forest Department, Secretariat tlu ldir gs, Sccrelarrat, l-l derirbad,^{Slate of Telangana.}

¶45

1. The Dislrici C^{rllector,Nalgonda District,Telangan:r Stat€'} 3. The Dislrict Fr rest^{Officer, Nalgonda,Nalgonda Distri<:t'} a. f f,e f or:st^Rz nge^{Cfficer,Choutuppal, BhuvanagirrYadzd'i Distrtct'} S fl" fif-..ifOrr S"anrasthanarayanpur^{lr/andal,Bhuvanirgiri i'ad adri Distnct.} o rln" Cc to sr^{RAPOLU BHASKAR,Advocate [OPU(I} i i;; Cat 1. 6^:r [f)R^{FORESTS, High Court for tho Slat€c i T( iangana'a[} HvderaL ad. ['^)UT]

¶46

A i;o"Ctii. C^{) FCIRREVENUE, High Courtfor the Slak:(rI Tolangana' at} Hyderat,ad [^)UT]

¶47

I Two CD Copr, s

¶48

PS K. (ii I' ..r?

HIGH COURT

DATED:17104,2023

ORDER

WP.No.13120 oi 2A21

<r.
._.)
i'
i r<br>I
<br>C)

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO:iTS.

¶55

05*

Jillaboina Ramachandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jillaboina Ramachandraiah 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

Md.Rasheed Khan Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Marshakatla Balaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Nallandhigal Radha Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Ahmed Sayeeduddin Vs The State of Telangana and another

Vara Ramanadham S/o. late Narsaiah, Vs State of Telangana

Cheemala Venkateswarlu Vs The Forest Range Officer