Disposed

Gadda Devamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jan 2023WP/1845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dispossession of land for Haritha Haram Programme without notice. Court directed respondents not to dispossess petitioner without following due law, granting liberty to acquire land for public purposes.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to dispossess petitioner without following due procedure. Liberty granted to acquire land via legal process if needed for public purpose.

Gadda Devamma Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3168 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1845 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gadda Devamma, Wo.[t/allaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o. H.No.4-32, Avuthapur village, Peddavangara Mandal, I/ahabubabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Mahabubabad District at lrilahabubabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thorrur Division, Mahabubabad District. 4 The Tahsildar, Peddavangara lvlandal, Mahabubabad District. 5 The Revenue lnspector, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District. 6 Avuthapur Grampanchayat, Avuthapur village, Peddavangara Mandal. lrilahabubabad District, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary

¶12

...RESpONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the 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 action'of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from her land in Sy.No.10712 to an extent of Ac 2.00gts situated at Avuthapur village, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District for the purpose of planting tress under Haritha Haram Programme, without giving any notice, without opportunity of being heard and without following due process of Law as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioners land in Sy.No.107/2 to an extent of Ac 2.00gts situated at Avuthapur village, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District

¶14

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under section 151 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 dispossess the petitioner from her lands in sy.No'107/2 to an extent of Ac 2.00gts situated at Avuthapur viilage, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District without due process of law, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MOHD SUBHAN pASHA Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to5: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.6: SRl. p. KISHORE RAO, SC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.1845 of 2o23

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and leamed

¶22

Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue.

¶23

The petitioner herein is claiming that she is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No. 107/2, situated at Avuthapur Village, Peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District, on the strength of simple sale deed dated 26.12.1995. However, land admeasuring Ac. l-00 gts in Sy.No.107/3 was only mutated in her name and latest Pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued. She is taking steps for rectification of aforesaid lvrong entry in the latest Pattadar passbook, title deed and also revenue records. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are interfering with her possession over the aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.10713 of Avutapoor Village without following due procedure laid down under law. Therefore, the present Writ Petition.

¶24

{ I

¶25

Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions would submit that respondents never

1 I)

I i I

interfered with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property and if the same is required for any public purpose, it will be acquired by following due procedure laid down under law.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land admeasuring Ac.l_00 gts in Sy.No.107/3 of Awtapoor Village without following due procedure laid down under law. However, if the said land is required for any public purpose, liberty is granted to respondents to take steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶35

¶36

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶37

./ _

¶38

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTfr,AR //TRUE COPY// J/

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Tahsildar,. peddavangara Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶42

z' rne Kevenue rnsoector peddavangara Mandar, Mahaoubabid oistrict 3. The Panchavat S'ecreta ry.Aurt a p r'r-eianil;;h;;t, Avutha pu r vi I I a ge, .^{Peddavan ga ra Ma ndat, Mrha} bL oioio-bi.i',Ii J.'^{-" "} "

¶43

lwo CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana,at Hyderabad IOUTI

¶44

I. 9n"^{CC to SRt. il,tOHO S_UgHnNPASHA,} Advocate tOpUCl 6. ONE CC tO SRI.P.KISHORE RAO,SiAi,iDiNG.COUNSC.IO'PUCi

¶45

Two CD cooies BM

GJP

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED:2410112023

ORDER

WP.No.1845 of 2023

xH E ET4
q
?
rf
c
(-) 0 2 tt,q 2m3
<br>i;'t

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Gadda Devamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadda Devamma 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

M/S. Trr Engineering Collage, Medak Dist. Vs Rpf Commr., Epfo, Hyd. and Ano.

Devavarapu Sulochana Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Chinthapatla Narsamma Vs State of Telangana

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal

N. Anji Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Krishnaiah Gongli Vs The State of Telangana