Dismissed

Udathaneni Appaial v. The joint Collector

Telangana HC13 Dec 2023WP/18535/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged eviction orders under the Land Encroachment Act, claiming illegality and mala fides. The Court, after reviewing records and hearing counsel, found no illegality or irregularity in the orders. The appeal confirmation was noted, and possession had been taken. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs. No relief granted to the petitioner regarding the eviction orders.

Udathaneni Appaial Vs The joint Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEI\iIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18535 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Udathaneni Appaial, S/o.lVlallaiah, Aged about 63 years, Agriculture R/o. Bandarugudem Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Joint Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District 3 The Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, orders, directions and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the orders of eviction passed by the 3rd respondent dated 23.11.2OO4 in Rc.No. 8.1322011998 and as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in L.E. Appeal No. 1 of2005 dated 20.O1.2OO7 and as confirmed by the 1't respondent in Appeal No. E2-6l2007 dated 24.01 .2009 under the Provisions of Land Encroachment Act for the petitioners land admeasuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.290/4, situated at Manuguru Town and Mandal, Bandarugudem Main Road, Khammam District are illegal, arbitrary malafide and much against to the legal and fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of lndia and Consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶14

l.A. NO:1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO:24241 OF 2009)

¶15

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 preased to direct the respondents not to assign the petitioner's land admeasuring 20 guntas in sy.No.290/A situated at [Manuguru Town & I/andar, Bandarugudem Main Road, Khammam District in favour of any third parties or otherwise, dear with the same in any manner of whatsoever nature.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PALIVELA SATYARAJA BABU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: cp FOR REVENUE

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.18 535 of 2OO9

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking the foltowing relief:_

¶23

"...to issue an appropr[ole tuit, orclers, dtrections more parttcularlg one in the nature of Mctndamus declaring that the ordcrs of eutction passed bg the 3-t respondent dated 23.j 1.2OO4 in RC. No.B/322O/ 1998 and as conf.nned bA the 2".1 respondent in L.E. Appc(tL No 1 of 2OOS dated 2O.01.2OO7 and as conJirmed bA the_ 1.t respondent in Appeal No. E2 6/2007 dated 24.O j.2O09 under the Prouisions of Land. Encroochment Act for the petttioner's land admcasunng 20 guntas in Sg. No. 29O/A, situated at Manugunt Town and mandal, Bandarugudem matn Road, Khammam District are illegal, arbitrarg, mala,fi.de and much against to the legal and fundamental ights guaranteed under Constrtution of Indh. "

¶24

Heard Sri P. Satyarajababu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing on behalfof respondent Nos_ 1 to 3.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. O-2O guntas, in Survey No. 29O/A, situated at Manugum Town and Mandal, Bandarugudem Main Road, Khammam District, presently Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and the same was purchased from respondent No. l, Kuri Sammaiah, on 22.O4.2OO5 on paying valuable sale consideration and the

¶26

2 petitioner has been in^{possessionand enjoymentof the said} property.

¶27

He further submits^{that SpecialDeputyCollector} (Tribal Welfare),^{Palvoncha, initiatedproceedings againstthe} petitioner in L.T.R.^{case No. 1305/95/MGR, dt' 22 Ol 1996'} exercising the^{powersconferred'under thc provisions of the} A.P.Scheduled^{Areas Land Transfer Regulation Rules ( for short} 'thc Rules') stating that^{the petitionerpurchasedthe said} property contrary to the^{said RulesAfter due enquiry' the LTR} Case has been^{dismissed holding that purchasing of the said} property is not controversial^{of the regulations Thc namcof} the petitioner was^{mutatedin the revenuerecorcisanci} pattadar passbooks and^{title deed were issuedinthe year} 1996. When respondent^{No. 3 is trying to interfere with the} subject property,^{thepetitioner along withothcrsl-rave} approached this Court^{and frled W'P No' 13584of 20O4' and} the same was disposed^{of directing the respondents not to} dispossess the^{petitionerstherein withoutfollowing the due} procedure of law.

¶28

While things stood thus,^{respondentNo 3issued} notice under Section 6^{of the Land Encroachment Act' 19O5'} (for short, The ActJ alleging that^{petitionerhad encroachcd the} land in Survey No.^{138/2.Thepetitioner submitted}

¶29

¶30

explanation. Without properly considering the same, respondent No.3 passed an order under Section 6 of the Act, 1905, in RC. No. B/3O2O/98, dated 23. tt.2OO4, alleging that the petitioner had encroached an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-O3 7/2 gtntas and taken possession of the said property by the government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 vide Appeat No.1 of 2OO5 invoking the provisions under Section 1O(l) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, without properly considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal on 24.O1.2OO9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed another Appeal No. E2-6 /2OO7 before respondent No.1. The Appellate authority also, without properly considering the appeal, confirmed the order of the primary authority as well as Appellate authority on 24.Or.2009.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property of Ac.0.2O cents situated in Survey No. 29O/A. Respondent No.3, without conducting any survey and demarcating land, erroneously held that the petitioner had encroached the land to an extent of Ac.0-O3 1/2 guntas situated in Survey No. 29O/A, and taken custody. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is contrary to law. The Appellate Authority, without considering the grounds

¶32

¶33

raised by the petitioner, simply^{confirmedthe orders of} respondent No.3 and the same^{is liable to be set a-side'}

¶34

Per contra, the learned Assistant^{GovernmcntPleader} submits that respondent^{No.3 after followingthe due process} as contemplated under law^{including after conducting survey,} came to conclusion that^{petitioner had encroached an extent of} land admeasuring Ac.O-03^{1/2 guntas in SurveyNo' 138/2'} Respondent No.3 rightly^{passed the impugnedorderand the} same was confirmed by^{respondentNo.l on 24.O1.2OO9and} there is no illegality and^{irregularity in the said order'}

¶35

Having considered rival^{submissions made by the} respective parties and after^{perusal of the materialavailable on} record, it clearly reveals that^{respondentNo.3 alongwith} others, in the earlier round^{of litigationapproached this court} and liled Writ Petition No.^{13584 of 2OO4, stating that the} respondents are interfering with^{subject property without} following due procedure as contemplated^{underlaw This court} disposed of the said writ^{petition directing the respondentsnot} to dispossess the petitioner^{from the subject property,without} following due process of law.^{Thereafter, respondentNo'3} initiatecl proceedings invoking^{the provisions of the Act and} issued proccedings under Section 6^{of the Act ancl aftcr} considering the explanation submitted by the^{petitionerand}

¶36

5 also taking into consideration the mandal surveyor report dated 1 l.lO.2OO4 held that the petitioner had encroached land to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.O 03 in Sur-vey No.l38/2 and passed a detailed order on 23.11.2OO4. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 and the same was conhrmed on 2O.O 1.2OO7. Thereafter, the petitioner l-rled another appeal before respondent No. I and the Appellate Authority, after going through the entire records and also after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 2O.O1 .2OO9. The records further reveals that the government has already taken possession of the subject land encroached by the petitioner into its custody. This court did not find any illegality and irregularity in the orders passed by the respondents, while exercising powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶39

closed

¶40

SD/- N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l,rSECTIOT{I OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

I One CC to SRI PALIVELA^{SATYARAJA BABU,} Advocate. IOPUCI

¶43

2 Two CCs to GP FOR^{REVENUE, High Court} for the Staie of T6tangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶44

3 Two CD Copies.

¶45

BSK GJ ;.

¶46

¶47

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI\IAS RAO

¶48

WRIT PETITION No.18535 of 2OO9

¶49

Dt: t3-t2-2O23 tssb/ mar

¶50

HIGH COURT

¶51

DATED: 1 311212023

¶52

1
e STAT€
o
f,oo $qttBNu
+
t alnCt

¶53

ORDER

¶54

WP.No.18535 of 2009

¶55

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Udathaneni Appaial v. The joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udathaneni Appaial v. The joint Collector

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

Sunkari Lingaiah Vs The Secretary to Government

Sri Goura Venkatesh, Vs Rev. (Assignment), Rep. by Its Prl. Sec. and 5 Ors.

Mir Mukkaram Ali Khan, Vs the Deputy Director and Another

V. Sunil Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its

D. Satyanarayana Vs Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Smt. Mainunnisa Vs The District Collector