Allowed

Nandala Srinivas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023WP/3888/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged a demolition notice issued by the Tahsildar alleging unauthorized construction on Wakf land. The Court held that the notice was issued WITHOUT jurisdiction as the Tahsildar admitted the property belonged to the Wakf Board.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings and notice dated 19-02-2009 set aside and Writ Petition allowed with no costs.

Nandala Srinivas Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3888 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nandala Si'inivas, S/o. Chinna Ramaiah. Aoeoed about 38 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Toopran Village and A,4andal, trledak District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Medak District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Toopran tVlandal Medak District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 Order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. B/3'1 7/09 dated 19-02-2009 issued by the 2no Respondent is so far as Petitioner property bearing No. 13-1O4l2tB admeasuring 180 sq.yards in Sy.No.439 of Tbopran Village and Mandal, Medak Dist. is arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 16,21 ,3OO A of the Constitution of lndia, and principles of Natural Justice.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 5058 OF 2009)

¶16

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 suspend the operation of lmpugned Proceedings No. B/317109 dated^.19-02-2009 issued by the 2nd Respondeni is so far as PLtitioner property bearing No. 131O4l2lB admeasuring 180 sq.yards in Sy.No.439 of Toopran Village and Mandal, Medak Dist., pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. GOVIND

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.3888 OF 2OO9

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶24

".....to issue a Wit, Order or direction more particularlg one in the nsture of Writ of mandamug declaing ttrc proceedings No.B/317/09, dated 19.02.2009 issued bA the 2"d respondent is so far as the petitioner propertA beaing NO.13-104/2/B admeasuing 180 sq.gards in Sg.No.439 of Toopran Village and Manda| Med.ak Distict as arbitrary, illegal, uithout juisdiction qnd uiolatiue of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 3O0-A of th.e Constitution of India."

¶25

Heard Sri K.Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and2.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petilioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the property bearing D.No. 13-104/2/B adrneasuring 18O Sq.Yards in Sy.No.439, Toopran Village and Mandal, Medak District and the same was purchased through registered sale deed vide document No. 1065 of 2008, dated 28.05.2008 and the petitioner,s name was mutated in the revenue records. He also submits that

¶27

¶28

petitioner constructed the RCC Building after obtaining permission from the Toopran Gram Panchayat. While things stood, respondent No.2 issued impugned notice vide Notice No.B/3I7 /2OO9, dated lg.O2.2OO}, alleging that the petitioner is constructing houses in Sy.No.439, which is a wakf land and directed the petitioner to demolish the house or else the respondent authorities will demolish the same.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.2 is not having any authority or jurisdiction to issue notice. Admittedly the property is not belonging to the revenue Department. He further contended that the respondent No.2 himself admitted that the property is a wakf land. Hence, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction.

¶30

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 issued impugned notice dated 19.O2.2OO9, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation. Petitioner without submitting any explanation straight away approached this Court and frled this Writ Petition and the sarne is not maintainable under law. He further submits that

¶31

¶32

, t

¶33

to protect the Government property, respondent No.2 issued the irnpugned notice and there is no illegality or irregularity and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought in this Writ Petition.

¶34

Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties, after going through the material available on record, it clearly reveals that the petitioner is claiming the rights over the subject property, basing upon the registered sale deed dated 28.05.2008. Subsequently, petitioner made construction pursuant to the permission granted by the Toopral Gram Panchayat vide Lr.No.2O/ 1 H.B.P/G.P.Toopran/2008, dated 04.08.2008. Respondent No.2 issued notice on 19.O2.2OO9, directing the petitioner to remove the construction as the subject property belongs to Wakf Board. Admittedly, respondent No.2 himself admitted that this subject property belongs to Wakf Board and the same was notified in the Government Gazette in the year 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that once tJ'e propert5r described as wakf land and notified as wakf land in the Government Gazette in the year 2001, the

¶35

¶36

¶37

respondent No.2 is not having any authorit5r to issue the impugned notice.

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 dated 19.O2.2OO9 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶41

SD/. K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT Gts R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet tVledak District.

¶46

The Tahsildar, Toopran Mandal Medak District.

¶47

One CC to Sri K. Govind, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

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

¶49

Two CD Copies TJ GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811212023

ORDER

WP.No.3888 of 2009

1 \4E STAT€
t
q 1s JrN 2[2[ i
o {r
* D

¶55

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶56

O ,-,
(-A-)ut

Nandala Srinivas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandala Srinivas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Shri Patchineelam Muni Kevasa Rao Vs The Sub Collector, Bhadrachalam,Khammam District

Shaik Khaja Muniwar Begum, Vs The District Collector

S. Rajender Singh, Vs Ms. Smitha Sabarwal

Kasoju Madhu Sudhana CHARY,CHANDUBHATLA[POSTANDV],MHBBNGR,AND3 Vs the District Collector, R. R. Dist., Lakdikapool,Hyd., and 5OT

Chandra kumar H.Shah Vs K.Chandrakala

Golusula Peddulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh