Dismissed

Bellamkonda Gattaiah, v. Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of T.S.

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023WP/23840/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition and stay petition seeking to declare a suit for perpetual injunctions illegal due to lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the suit is maintainable, relying on its own Division Bench judgments that the relevant villages fall within the scheduled area.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition (W.P. No. 23840 of 2018) and the accompanying stay petition (I.A. No. 1 of 2018) without costs.

Bellamkonda Gattaiah, Vs Secy., Social Welfare dept… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETITION No: 23840 0F 2018

¶8

Bellamkoqda Gattaiah,, s/o Kistaiah., (wrongly shown as Kittaiah), aged About Burgampad 71 vrs., occ. Mandat, Aoricutture r/ o.T.alldgomriJru, Bhaoradri-Kothigij;;;-Diltri"[' Sirapir<u^-' n"r6"ri,-vii[!"

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 IT 91ry^{ql Tglrrngana,rep. by trs Secr.etary,TribatWetfare Deparrmenr,} bovernment ot I etangana, secretariat, Hvderabad.

¶12

2 .lhe^{special Assistant Agentto_ Govemmdnt} and sub Divisionar Magistrate,, Mobile Court, Bhadrachitam, enaOraari{oihiqrJJ, Di.tri"t.

¶13

3 The Tahsitdar,,.Burgampad Mandal, Bfradradri-"kothJqudem District. 4 r ne ursrnct Uoflector-cum-Agent to Govemment,, Bhadradri_Kothagudem District at Kothagudem.

¶14

( o The ?9ll?nllo!dr,Rajeshwara Union of [dia,, rep. by_its^{Rao,, s/o} Secretary,^Venkaiah, Ministry^ajed of^about Home^{55 yrs.} Affairs,^occ New Dethi. Aqflcutrure. do I a aoommuru, Sarapaka Revenue Village, Buigampad Mandal, Bhadradri-K;thagudem Dis[rici.

¶15

Petition under Articte 226 ot the Constitution of tndia or"r;,ff:i:i?"tl# crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, decraring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in entertaining o.S.No.48 of 201g on its file filed by the 6th respondent herein against the petitioner for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.1.16s gts of rand in s-No.42lA situate at sarapaka Revenue village, Burgampad tvandar, Bhadrad.Kothagudem District is without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and also violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and issue consequential direction to the 2nd respondent herein not to entertain the above suit

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶17

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 stay

¶18

¶19

I I l

¶20

all further proceL.d rgs in suit O.S-No. 48 of 2018 on the file ol the 2nd respondent herein, pending dis cosal of the above writ petilion

¶21

Counsel for the Pr titioner: SRI KIRAN REDDY MALLARAT,U

¶22

Counsel for Respr ndent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR SOCIAL WELf ARE

¶23

Counsel for Respr ndent No. 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMI\R,

¶24

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENI:F:AL OF INDIA

¶25

Counsel for Resp< ndent No. 6: SRI C.SREENIVAS

¶26

The Court made tt e following: ORDER

¶27

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.2384O of 2O18

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Writ Petition is hled seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in entertaining suit O.S.No.48 of 2018 hled by the respondent No.6 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.16 gts in Sy.No.42/A situated at Sarapaka Revenue village, Burgampad Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District is u,ithout jurisdiction

¶31

Heard Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and iearned Assistant Government Pleader for tribal welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Deputy Solicitor General of [ndia appearing for respondent No.s, learned counsel Sri Krishna Vennalakanth appearing on behalf of respondent No.6.

¶32

Le arned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the ou-ncr of the land to an extent of Ac.1.16 gts in Sy.No.42/A situatecl at Sarapaka revenue village, Burgampad Mandal,

¶33

¶34

Bhadradri-kc .hagudem District. The respondent \o.6 fiied suit vide O.S.NI>..8 of 20 18 on the filc of Specral Assrstant Agent to Government & Sub-Divisional Magistratr:, Mol>ile Court at Bhadrachalar r/Respondent No.2, for seel.irLg perpetual rnJunctlon

¶35

1. Learned <:ounsel for thc petitioner vcht:m:r' tly contended that suit sr:h rdule propcrtv is not situated u ithin tL.e schedule area and th respondent No.2 is not h,rving _turisdiction to entertain the uit

¶36

Per cont^'a, learned Assistant Govcrnment plez:der- as well as respondent N,.(r contencled that the suit filcd by thc respondent No.6 before tl e respondcnt No.2 is vt'r1' much rna.rntarnable and the responder t Nrr.2 is lrar,ing jurisdiction to^{(rr11(:1tai11} the suit. The very samr issue caftre up for consideratrorr b,:lore this Court in W.P.No.1.16 t3 of 2OO5 arrcl W.P.No.48 of 2O2O enl the Division Bench of thir Court spccificallv held that the S,arzrpaka and Rajanpeta Vill ges conres rvithin tlrc pen'ieu,c,f the Sr:lredule Area.

¶37

¶38

In view of the same, the suit hled by the respondent No.6 vide., O.S.No.48 of 2018 belore the respondent No.2 is very much maintainable under law. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

6 Accordingly, the u,rit petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition,

shall stand closed

SD/.V.KAVITHA

To,

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECT

1 2 919 r wo ccs !9^t9 to^S1$ilan Gp For Sociar^Reddy werfare,^rvtailarapu High^Advocate court for tOpUClttre state of rerangana. touTl

¶49

1. One CC to Sri Gadi^praveen Kumar, Deputy_solicitor Genera(Opuc) 4. One CC to Krishna Vennatakanth, eavocat6(OFUCJ' -- 5. Two CD Copies

I{IGH COURT

DATED: 1210412023

I.
':,,
{'
<br>

ORDER

WP.lrlc,.23840 of 2018

¶58

o\1'8
b,e
{5 Q3

¶59

DISM!SSING THE^I/I/RIT PETITION WII'HOUT COSTS

Bellamkonda Gattaiah, v. Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of T.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bellamkonda Gattaiah, v. Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of T.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nagishettigari Kashiram Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Yellavula Paparao Vs The State of Telangana

Mudiraj Matsya Paresrameka Singam Vs The Assistant Director of Fisheries and Ex-Officio Deputy

Nalluri Ramakrishna, Vs Government of a.P., repre., by its Principal Secretary

J. Subhash, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief

Pampana Satyamayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh