Allowed

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

Telangana HC17 Apr 2023WP/32386/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an impugned order directing the Tahsildar to evict petitioners and take disputed land into government custody. Finding the order contrary to law and statute as it ignored title findings, the Court quashed the directive.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.06.2017 directing the Tahsildar to take possession of the land into Government custody is set aside.

Vara Ramanadham S/o. late Narsaiah, Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE 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: 32386 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vara Ramanadham S/o. late Narsaiah, Aged: 5'1 years, Occ: Clerk in the Nasaruddin Rice Mill, Rt/o. Seethampeta village, Pinapaka Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District (Formerly Khammam District) Telangana State

¶10

Smt. Syed Nazaruddin Begum Wo. late Nasaruddin, Age: 82 Yrs, Occ: Cultivation & Business, R/o Seethampeta village, Pinapaka Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (Formerly Khammam Dist) Telangana State.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Additional Agent & Prolect Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶15

The Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Pinapaka Revenue Mandal, Pinapaka , Bhadradri Kothagudem District, (formerly Khammam District.)

¶17

Karam Papamma Wo. lstharaiah, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Cultivation, Ryo. Uppaka village, Pinapaka Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (Formedy Khammam District) Telangana State

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus, declaring order of the 2nd respondent in Clt/A No.1 of 2010 dated 19-06-2017 to the extent it directs the 4th respondent to take over the land of the^petitioners in Sy. Nos⁷⁴¹ & 7251E measuring an extent of Acs.3-09^gts situated at Edulla Bayyaram^village of Pinapaka Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District into Government custoty as illegal, arbitrary, violative of^principles of natural^justice and without

¶20

jurisdiction and consequentially direct the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property under the guise of the impugned observations of the 2nd respondent in the order dated. 19-062017 in CMA No.^'112010

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 40284 OF 20171

¶22

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 the dispossession of the petitioners from the subject property in Sy. Nos 741 & 7251E measuring an extent of Acs.3-09 gts situated at Edulla ayyaram village of Pinapaka Revenue andal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Pending disposal of the Wdt Petition in the interest of^justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. JAGADEESHWER REPRESENTING FOR SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: ASST. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SMT. T, PADMAJA REPRESENTING FOR SRI T.D. PANI KUMAR

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J" SREENIVAS RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.32386 OF 2017

¶29

ORDER:-

¶30

This writ petition is Illed secking writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 79.06.2017 of the respondent No.2 in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2010 to the extent directing Tahsildar/ rc spondent No.4 to take ovcr the land of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.74 I & 725 lE admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.09 guntas situated at Edulla Bayyaram Village of Pinapaka Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District into Government custody as illegal, arbitrary, violativc of principles of natural^justice and without^jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property under the guise of the impugned order dated 19.06.2017 in C.M.A. No. 1/201O.

¶31

Heard Sri K. Jagadeeshwer, learned counsel appearing for Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Tribal Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 and Smt. T. Padmaja, learned counsel representing Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

¶32

karned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.3.O9 guntas covered by Sy.Nos.74l and 725/E situated at Edulla Bayyaram Village of Pinapaka Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and tJle same was acquired from late Nasaruddin, who is none other than the husband

¶33

of petitioner No.1 and during his lifetime he had constructed a small Rice Mill bearing H.No.6-5 and two tiled houses bearing House Nos.6-4, and 6- 7 and one godowri bearing House No.6-6. The petitioners' names have been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books were issued in their favour and the petitioners have been paying house taxes to the concerned Gram Panchayat.

¶34

3.1. He further submits that respondent No.S initiated proceedings before respondent No.3 invoking the provisions of Telangana State Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Rules, 1969 (Amendment No. 1 of 197O) (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation') against thc petitioners seeking eviction from the subject property. The respondent No.3 after following the due procedure and after considering the contentions of the respective parties, dismissed the Case No.262/O8/PNK by its order dated 06.O5.2009.

¶35

3.2. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.S filed appeai before the respondent No.2 vide C.M.A. No. 1/201O and. the same was dismissed on 19.06.2017 and confirmed the order of the respondent No.3. While dismissing appeal respondent No.2 directed tl-e respondent No.4 to take the subject property into Government custody. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the respondent No.2 to the extent of directing the respondent No.4 to take possession of the scheduled land by evicting the petitioners, is contrary his own order and also contrary to law.

¶36

¶37

Per contra lcarned Assistant Government Pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 vehemently contends that as per the provisions of Section 6 of Regulations against the order passed by the respondent No.2, revision lies to the Government. The petitioners without availing the statutory remedy of Revision filed the writ petition and the same is not maintainable under law and liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and pemsed the record. It is undisputed fact that the respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings against the petitioners for ejectment invoking provisions of the Regulations vide Case No. 262/2OOa/PNK and after considering the contentions and documentary evidence on record dismissed the case by its order dated 06.05.2009 by giving cogent reasons, holding that the respondent No.S is not having any title or possession over the schedule land and the provisions of Section 3 (1) of Regulations are not attracted.

¶39

Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.S frled appeal C.M.A. No. 1 of 20 10 before respondent No.2 and tl.e appellant authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of^the respondent No.3 by its order dated 19.06 .2O17 .^{T}:.e respondent} No.2 without giving any other reasons directed^{the respondentNo.4} to take possession of the schedule^{land frorn the petitionersinto} Government custody.

__l

Admittedly, respondent No.3 while dismissing Case No. 262/2OO8/PNK specifically held that the provisions of Section 3 of the Regulations are not attracted to the subject property and the said order confirmed by the respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 ought not to have directed the respondent No.4 to take possession of subject property into Government custody and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Regulations and also contrar5r to law.

¶44

In view of the foregoing reasons the impugned order, dated 19.06.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 in C.M.A. No. i of 201O to the extent of directing the respondent No.4 to take over the schedule land into Government custody by evicting ttre petitioners, is liable to be set aside. Accordingiy set aside.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous application, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶47

That Rule Nisi has been made Absolute as above witness

¶48

The Hon'ble SRI UJJAL BHUYAN, The Chief Justice on this Mondav. The Seventeenth Day Of April, Two Thousand And Twenty Three.

¶49

SD/.K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ?-SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶50

The Additional Agent & Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶51

3r The Special Deputy Coltector (TW), Bhadrachalam.

¶52

The Tahsildar, Pinapaka Revenue Mandal, pinapaka , Bhadradri Kothagudem

¶53

_^{Uistrict,(formerly KhammamDistrict.)}

¶54

One CC to SRI KoWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate IoPUCI

¶55

lwo CCs to GP FOR SOCTAL WELFARE, High Court toi tre Siate or Telangana. [OUT]

¶56

I^{One CC to SRI T.D.PANt KUMAR,Advocate} tOpUCl

¶57

q 8. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710412023

ORDER

WP.No.32386 ot 2017

z?,.>
v
a) ^ry
:-
!- t- .(-'
,:.a .\a)

.J
c Hc

¶64

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

(, @'o

¶66

al2

¶67

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vara Ramanadham S/o. late Narsaiah, v. 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

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

Jillaboina Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Ahmed Sayeeduddin Vs The State of Telangana and another

Cheemala Venkateswarlu Vs The Forest Range Officer