Allowed

Ch.Nageswara Rao, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Feb 2023WP/30469/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana disposed of a long-pending Writ Petition challenging dispossession from lands due to failure to issue notice under statutory land act. Noting respondents' inaction and non-filing of counter-affidavit, Court restrained them from interfering with possession without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed; respondents directed not to interfere with petitioners' possession due to lack of due process.

Ch.Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

[³²⁵⁶ ]

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

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 30469 OF 2016

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ch.Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Aged 60 years, R/o.3-lncline, P.O Ramvaram, T.Q. Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶11

Ch.Rama Rao, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Aged 55 years, R/o.3-lncline, P.O Ramvaram, T.Q. Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶12

Yedla Balakrishna, S/o.Musalaiah, Aged 42 years, R1o.3-lncline, P.O Ramvaram, T.Q. Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶13

Payyavula Somaraju, S/o.Mallaiah, aged 55 years, R/o.3-lncline, P.O. Ramvaram, T.Q. Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶14

Payyavula Mallaiah, S/o.Komaraiha, Aged 70 years, R/o.3-lncline, P.O. Ramvaram, T.Q. Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

'1. The State of Telangana, rep. by lts Principal Secretary Revenue (Assignment) Dept., Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶19

The Sub Collector, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶20

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudam, Khammam District.

¶21

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, (i) declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps to dispossess us without issuing any notice as required to be issued under A.P. Land Encroachment Act with regard to land situated Sy.No.1/1 of Garimillapadu Village of Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary andⁱⁿ violation of principles of natural^justice and also in conflict that the proceedings

¶24

¶25

¶26

earlier issued vide Rc.No.D/403/1984, dated 30.03.1986 issued in favour of the petitioners and cor]sequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the 1st Petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No,1/1, the 2nd Petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents rn sy.No.1/1 the 3rd Petitaoner to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy. No 1/1 the 4th Petitioner to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents and the 5th Petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents, from the lands, situated in Sy,No.1/1 of Garimiilapadu Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District, without following the procedure contemplated under law.

¶27

|.A.NO:1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 37714 OF 2016l

¶28

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hlgh Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in possession of the^'1 st Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents in Sy.No.1/1, the 2nd petitioner to an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents in Sy.No.'ll'1, the 3rd petitioner to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy.No.1/1, the 4th petitioner to an extent of Ac. 4.00 cents and the 5th petitioner to an extent of ac. 3.00 cents, from the lands, situated in Sy.No.111 of Garimillapadu Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District, pending disposal of the writ petrtion.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.NALLAMASU KRISHNA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

¶31

The Gourt made the following ORDER

t t

I I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO.30469 OF 2016

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess the p€titioners without following due process of law and without issuing any notice under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and in conflict with the proceedings bearing Rc.No.D/4O3/ i984 dated 30.03.1986 issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.00 cents, Acs.3.OO cents, Acs.s.OO cents, Acs.4.00 cents and Acs.3.OO cents respectively situated in Survey No.1/1 of Garimillapadu Village of Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶39

This Court, while. ordering notice on L4.09.2016, directed the respondents to maintain status Eto as on that date.

¶40

This Court has taken up the matter for consideration on

¶41

27.1O.2022 and passed the following order:-

¶42

"Though writ petition is of the yeat 2016, no counteralfidavit is filed in the matter as on date. This Court by an order, dated 14.09.2016 directed the respondents to maintain status quo as on that date.

¶43

As this Writ Petition is of the year 2016 and the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the^possession of the subject property without following any due process of law, this Court is of the view

¶44

MSK,J w.P.NO.30469 0F 20l6

¶45

¶46

¶47

that there is no justification for the respondents in not filing counter-affidavit even after lapse of more tian six years.

¶48

In thc circumstances, finally thc mattel is adjourned by three weeks to enable the respondents to hle counter-affidavit, if any, in the matter. If no counter affidavit is filed within the time specihed above, the matter $,ill be disposed of without waiting any further basing on the material available on record.

¶49

The interim order granted earlier shall continue till next date of hearing.

¶50

Post on 17.11.2022."

¶51

When the matter is taken up today, it is noticed that no

¶52

counter affidavit is Iiled yet.

¶53

In the circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that the averments made in the aflidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are not disputcd and the interim order is operative since 14.09.2016, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in any manner without following due process of law.

¶54

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶55

applications, if any, pending shali stand closed.

¶56

SD/-K.SREERAMA MURTY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

i/TRUE COPY//

L tt:)

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment) Dept., Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶62

The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶63

.) The Sub Collector, Khammam. Khammam District-

¶64

The Revenue Drvisional Officer, Kothagudam, Khammam District.

¶65

5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶66

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at

¶67

Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶68

1. One CC to SRI.NALLAMASU KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

8 Two CD Copies

¶70

One spare copy

S.A. BS

Bsr

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10212023

ORDER

WP.No.30469 of 2016

1 HE STA 16,
(
-'
2 7 FtB 2!2i
ri
.t,
: $.., pA: l\'

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

¶80

I
0t\L >
gsR

Ch.Nageswara Rao, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Nageswara Rao, 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

A. Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Dandu Chakradhar Vs Sri Amoy Kumar IAS

Smt. Pagadala Sangeetha Vs Sri Amoy Kumar IAS

Surya Group of Infra Developers Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

G Sreenivasulu Naidu Vs State of Telangana

Maliga Mallesham Vs The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer