Allowed

Gundelli Kanakaiah v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/32955/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Telangana High Court directed the respondents to release Rythu Bandhu benefits to the petitioner. The court found that an interim injunction in a pending suit only restrained alienation of property and did not prohibit benefit disbursement. Withholding benefits based on a misinterpretation of that order was found arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Release of Rythu Bandhu benefits to the petitioner for his land holdings, subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit; no order as to costs.

Gundelli Kanakaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 5… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³¹

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENW THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PET]TION^{NO: 32955OF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gundelli Kanakaiah,^{s/o Komuraiah,Aged about.60-years, occ;Agriculture, R/o} nirjirjram Village,^{Chilpur Mandal,Jangaon District,Telangana'}

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

l.TheStateofTelangana,RepbyitsPrincipalsecretary,RevenueDepartment' Secretariat HYderabad.

¶12

The District^{Agriculture Officer,Jangaon District, Telangana- 506167'}

¶13

The Agriculture^{Officer, Chilpur Mandal, JangaonDistrict' Telangana'}

¶14

The Tahsildar,^{Chilpur Mandal, Jangaon District,Telangana'}

¶15

The District Treasurer,^{Jangaon District,Telangana'}

¶16

6.MandaSwaroopaRani,D/oMandaKomuraiah'agedabout48years'Occ; - iiiliir""i,'ny" i.t.to.s-zqz, Maruthi Nagar, Malkajgiri Mandal' Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under^{Article226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueawrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writ of Mandamus,^{holding the action of the Respondentsin payingthe grant} under Rvthu Bandhu^{Schemeto the Petitioner, in respect of the agricu{turalland} admeasuring Ac.^{6-28guntas in Sy.No'63/A and Ac' 0'04 guntas in Sy'No'Sl/A} situated at^{Raajavaram Revenuevillage,chilpur Mandal, Ghanpur(Station)} Division of Jangaon^{District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in Violation of Articles} l4,15and2loftheConstitutionoflndiaandtoconsequently'directthe

¶19

¶20

Respondents^{to creditthe grant under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme into the bank} account^{of the Petitioner regularly, as previously given to the Petitioner'} I.A.N O:1^{oF 2022}

¶21

tances stated PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircums in the affidavit^{filedin supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleasedto} consider^{the representation of the petitionerby way of regarnotice dated 08-07-} 2022 issued^{to the Respondentsand consequently' direct the Respondentsto} credit the^{grantunder the Rythu Bandhu Schemeamountingto Rs' 34'0001} (Rupees Thirty-Four^{Thousandonly) into the bank accountof the Petitionerfor} the current^{Kharif season(vanakalam)in 2022'}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI SARAMPALLY MRUDULA}

¶23

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1 & 4 : AGPFOR REVENUE}

¶24

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'2 & 3 : AGPFOR AGRICULTURE}

¶25

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'5: AGPFORFINANCE}

¶26

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'6: M/s' P'SREE RAMYA}

¶27

The Court^{made the following ORDER}

¶28

t*z\

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.32955 0F 2022

¶31

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶32

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare action of respondents in not granting Rythu Bandhu scheme to the petitioner in respect of his land admeasuring Acs.6_2g guntas in Survey No.63lA and Ac.0-04 guntas in SurVey No.5 t/A situated at Raajavaram Revenue Village, Chilpur Mandal, Ghanpur (Station) Division of Jangaon District, as being illegal and arbitrary and subsequently, direct the respondents to deposit the amounts under Rythu Bandhu scheme into the bank account ofthe petitioner.

¶33

Petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Acs.6-28 guntas in Survey No.63/A and Ac.0_04 guntas in Survey No.5l/A situated at Raajavaram Revenue Village, Chilpur Mandal, GhaJrpur (Station) Division of Jangaon District. The name of the petitioner is recorded in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook No. 123020101016 with Khata No.60001. The petitioner had been receiving Rythu Bandhu benefits for the subject land up to 2021 (Rabiseason i.e., yasangi

Crop), and^{amounts were credited into the bank account} of the petitioner. It is stated that^petitioner did not receive the Rythu Bandhu benefits in^respect of the subject land for the cunent Kharif season^(Vanakalam) in 2022. On enquiry, the^petitioner came to know that^Rythu Bandhu amounts were not credited to his account as complaint^was lodged by respondent No.6.

¶38

Leamed counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.6 has^instituted a suit for declaration, recovery and possession and cancellation of proceedings of the Tahsildar and cancellation of revenue entries made in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.1272 of 2020 on the file of leamed lI Additional Junior Civit Judge, Warangal. An LA. No.468 of 2020 was filed in the said suit for grant of ad-interim injunction and order dated 23.11.2020 was^passed in the said I.A. restraining the petitioner and others from alienating the suit schedule property^(subject property), until counter is filed. Petitioner has filed counter affidavit in I.A. No.468 of 2020 and written statement in the main surt.

CEF'--Z :^-- ./

''!

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, injunction order is not subsisting. It is submitted even otherwise, there is no injunction or direction not to grant Rythu Bandhu benefits to the petitioner. Petitioner has issued legal notice dated 0g.07.2022, calling upon the respondents to pay Rythu Bandhu benefits within three (3) days. However, the same was not acted upon, as such, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has submitted that petitioner has created fabricated un-registered sale deed and got his name mutated in revenue records by colluding with respondent No'4 - Tahsildar. Respondent No.6 is absolute owner and possessor of the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.3 lg6 of 2015 dated 0g.10.2015. Interim injunction order passed in I.A. No.46g of ZOZ0 in O.S. No.l27l of 2020 is subsisting and was extended until further orders. petitioner is not entitled for Rythu Bandhu grants.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ieamed Assistant Government^pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. I

¶46

¶47

¶48

to 5 and leamed counsel for respondent No.6, and perused the rnaterial on record.

¶49

It is fairly conceded by respondent No.6 that there is no order passed by the Trial Coun in O.S.No.l271 of 2020 restraining respondent authorities from disbursing Rythu Bandhu benefits. It is stated that injunction order dated 23.11.2020 was passed in I.A. No.468 of 2020 in O.S. No.l27l of 2020 only restraining the alienation of suit schedule prrrperly. Thus, it is clear due to wrong interpretation of the order dated 23.11.2020, I{ythu Bandhu benefits were stopped to the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the suit is filed for declaration and recovery of possession. Thus, respondent No.6 is not in possession and no subsisting interest over the subject property as of now. In view of the same, stopping and with holding of Rythu Bandhu benefits to the petitioner on the basis of order dated 23.11.2020 in I.A. No.468 of 2020 in O.S.No. 1271 of 2020 is arbitrar"r and erroneous

¶50

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and respondents are

¶51

directed to release Rythu Bandhu benefits to the petitioner in

¶52

'7'

¶53

¶54

respect of his land admeasuring Acs.6_2g guntas in Survey No.63lA and Ac.0_04 guntas in Survey No.SllA situared at Raajavaram Revenue Village, Chilpur Mandal, Ghanpur (Station) Division of Jangaon District. Horvever, it is made clear that Rythu bandhu benefits received by the petitioner shall be subject to outcome of O.S. No. l27l of 2020. Any observation made in this wnt petition shall not have any bearing in the suit proceedings and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed No order as to

costs.

SDI-B. SARASWATHI

ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶63

The District Agriculture Officer, Jangaon District, Telangana - 506167.

¶64

The Agriculture Officer, Chilpur Mandal, Jangaon District, Telangana.

¶65

The Tahsildar, Chilpur Mandal, Jangaon District, Telangana.

¶66

The District Treasurer, Jangaon District, Telangana.

¶67

Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶68

Two CCs to GP For Agriculture, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶69

Two CCs to GP For Finance, High Court f,or the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTj

¶70

One CC to Srl Sarampally Mrudula, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

10.One CC to Sri P.Sree Ramya, Advocate {OPUCI 11. Two CD Copies SA GJP \ V

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212023

ORDER

WP.No.32955 of 2022

1 Y\E STAi-€f
q )
c-.,
co 2 B ut[ 2023
+
* CESp.Jc'.tti:'-,"

¶77

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶78

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶79

'),,

Gundelli Kanakaiah v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundelli Kanakaiah v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

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

Habeeb Fazlullah Vs The State of Telangana

Gadusu Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Uddem Gadda Rukamma Vs The State of Telangana

Godishala Bakkaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri Bandhi Anil Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Raghava-Plr (Jv) Vs Smt. a. Santhi Kumari, IAS