Allowed

Kurakula Sai Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023WP/42471/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana held that an ejectment order passed under LTR regulations without issuing a notice to the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice. The court set aside the order and directed the authorities to pass suitable orders after affording a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the ejectment order and panchanama dated 22.03.2017 and 15.09.2017. Directed authorities to issue notice and pass orders after personal hearing within four months.

Kurakula Sai Kumar Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY HE THIRD DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS^RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 42471 OF 2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 . Kurakula Sai Kumar, S/o Mogili, aged 23^{years, Student, Janampeta,} Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Presently,^Rl/o D.^No. 46-5- 69, Kashibugga, Vivakanada Colony-1 , Warangal, District.

¶11

Smt. Kurakula Swarupa, Wo Mogili, aged 40^{years, Ri/o Pandurangapuram,} H/o Janampeta, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem^District. (Presently Rl/o D.NO. 46-5-69, Kashibugga, Vivakananada Colony-1 Warangal District.)

¶12

Petitioner No.2 cause title is amended as^{per Court Order dated} 1811212017 in WPMP 5313812017

¶13

...PET]TIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary,^{Tribal Welfare} Department, Secretarit Buildings, Hyderabad. &\

¶16

The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare^{Department, SecretaritBuildings,} Hyderabad.

¶17

The Special Deputy Collector^{(TW), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem} District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Pinapaka Revenue^{Mandal, Bhadradri KothagudemDistrict.}

¶19

Smt. Soyam Poftamma, W/o Govardhan,^{aged about} Q0^yeqrs,R/9

¶20

Pandurangapuram Village, Pinapaka Mandal,^{BhadradriKothag-r.Ld-em-DJstrict.} ...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue anappropriate. Writ, Order or direction more^{particularlya Writ in} the nature of Mandmus declaring^{the action of the respondents, particularly the} 3rd respondent order vide LTR^{Case No. 59/2016/PNK,dated 22-03-2017 and} consequential Panchanama dated^{15-09-2017of the 4th respondent relating to} House No. 8-39/1 of Pandurangapuram,^{H/o 'JanampetaVillage,Pinapaka} Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem^{District as illegal, arbitrary, without issuing any} notice, contrary to the Rule 10 of^{the LTR RegulationsRule, 1969 andviolation} of Principal of Natural Justice and^{consequentially set-asidethe the 3rd} respondent order vide^{LTR Case No. 59i2016/PNK, dated22-03-2O17 and} consequential Panchanama^{dated1 5-09-201 7}

¶22

l.A. NO:1 O^{F 2017(WPMP . NO: 52647 0F 20171}

¶23

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated} intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto Stay the operation^{of the3rd respondent order vide LTR Case No'} 59/2016/PNK,^{daled 22-03-2017,consequential Panchanamadated15-09-2017} of the 4th^{respondent relating to House No. 8-39/1 of Pandurangapuram'H/o} JanampetaVillage,PinapakaMandal,BhadradriKothagudemDistrictpending the above^{Writ Petition}

¶24

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI' G' SIMHADRI}

¶25

Counsel for^{the Respondents No' 1to4: AGP FORTRIBAL WELFARE}

¶26

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'5:None Appeared}

¶27

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶28

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶31

Writ Petition No. 42471 of 2Ol7

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The petitioner Iiled this Writ PeLition seeking writ of Mandamus declaring thc action of the respondents, particularly, respondent No.3 in passing the order in LTR Case No.59/2016/PNK, without issuing any notice and consequential Panchanzrma dated 15.O9 .2017 of respondent No.4 relating to House No.8-39/ I of Pandurangapuram, Hlo Janampeta Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to RuIe 10 of the LTR Regulations RuIe, 1969 and violative of the prinicpal of natural justice and consequently set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 22.03.2017 and consequential Panchanarna dated 15.09.2O17.

¶34

Heard Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tribal Welflrre appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4. Inspite

¶35

¶36

¶37

service of noticc respondcnt No.5 has not chooscn to entcr into appearancc

¶38

Learned counsel for thc pctitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 belongs to Schcdule Tribe Community and his father had purchased eLn extcnt of Ac.0_05 cents of land in Sy.No.S8O situated at pandurangapuram, Hlo Janampeta, Pinapaka Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem District vide Sada Salc dccd datcd 07.06.2009 in the name Kurakula Jayaprakash u,ho is brother of petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, they constructcd the house in the said property and since,then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and their narnes were mutated in the Gram panchayat Records.

¶39

¶40

¶41

3.1 He further submits that the Gram panchayat allotted House No.8-39/ 1 in the name of 1"t petitioner and they obtained Electricity Connection also. When respondent No.5 is trying to disposses the petitioners from the subject property, the petitioners camc to know that respondent No.3 initiated proceedings based upon the complaint lodged by respondent No.5 while excrcising the powers conferred

I i I I II I

undcr Teiangana Statc Schedule Area land Transfer Regulation 1 of i959 and Rules 1969 made thereunder and passed the ejectment ordcr dated 22.03.2017 vide LTR Case No.59/2016/pNK and pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 conducted panchanama on 15.09.2017 though the pedtioners are in possession of the subject property.

¶46

3.2 He also submits that respondent No.3 without issuing any notice to the petitioners passed the ejectment order behind their back on 22.03.2017- He further submits that the impugned proceedings were initiated against Smt K. Swaroopa, wife of Mogili though the propery stalds in the name of K. Sai Kumar. Hence the impugned orders passed by respondent No.3 is in clear violation of natural justice and contraty to law. consequently, panchanama conducted by respondent No.4 on lS.Og.2OIZ is also against the law.

¶47

Per Contra, learned Assistant Govcrnment pleader contended that respondent No.3 rightly initiated the proceedings in respect of the subject property ald after following the duc process as contemplated under the \s \

¶48

¶49

\l \

¶50

provisions of thc Regulalions^{Iof 'l 959 and Rules 1969,} passed the ejectmcnt order dated^{22.O3-2'Ol7 .The} petitioners without availing thc remedy of the^appealas provided under the Regu'lations, straight^{away approached} this Court and filcd the prcscnt^{writ petition and the same} is not maintainable under^larv.

¶51

Having considered thc rival^s ubmissions^{made by} respective parties and aftcr^{perusing the rccord, it clearly} reveals that the^{petitioners are} claiming^{the rights overthe} subject propcrty basing on^{thc sada sale deed dated} 07 .06.2009 . The petitioners have^{constructedthe house} and they are residing in the said^{house aldrespective} Gram Panchayat has altotted^{housenumbersartd they are} paying house tax and also obtained electricity^service connections.

¶52

Learned counsel for thc^petitioners rightly^contended that respondent No.3 initiated^{proceedingsagainst Smt K} Swaroopa wife of the Mogili u,here as the property stands in the name of rhe pctitioners and the particulars of the propert), also wrongly mentioned Respondent No.3 passed

!. ,I

I i I I I

the impugned order wiLhout issuing notice to the petitioners and the same is clear violation of principle of natural justice.

¶57

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Altugn Housing Colong Welfare Assn. u. Govt. of A.F specifically held in para No.6 that no order adverse to a party should be passed without hearing it which reads as follows:

¶58

In our opinion, natural justice required that the persons in whose favour Respondent 5 allotted plots in thc property and to whom possession had also been handed over should have been impleaded in the writ petition and they should have been heard by the High Court. We have recently held in Fertilizers & Chemicals Trquancore Ltd. v. ESIC [(2009) 9 SCC 4g5 : (2009) 11 Scale 7661 that no order adverse to a party should be passed without hearing it.

¶59

Admitedly respondent No.3 while exercising the powers conferred under the Regulations 1 of 1959 and Rules 1969 ought to have issued notice to the parties.

¶60

In this instant case, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2012 wihout issuing notice and without glvtng reasonable opportunity to the

'^{(2009)9 SCC 489}

petitioners. In view of thc same, impugned orclcr passed by respondent No.3 dated 22.O3.2017 is liablc to be setaside.

¶65

9 . Learncd cou n scl for the petitioncrs spccifically contencled that respondent No.4 only conducted Panchanama on 15.09.2017 and the petitioners are .1n possession of the subject propcrty till date.

¶66

In vicw of the same, impugned order dated 22.O3.2017 uide LTR Case No.59/2016/pNK and consequential Panchanama dated 15.09.20 17 conducted by respondent No.4 are set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to issue notice to thc petitioners and respondent No.5 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity including personal hearing within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, respondent Nos.3 artd 4 are directed not to take any coercive steps against the subject property.

i:,, 19t

The Writ petition is a<rordingly disposcd of. No costs

¶72

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ

¶73

Petition shall stand closcd

¶74

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qI) SECT]ON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{Tribal Welfare Department, SecretaritBuildings,} T.S.,Hyderabad. z The b6mmissioner of Tribal^{Welfare Department, Secretarit Buildings'} Hvderabad. a. f6e Special Deputy^{Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, BhadradriKothagudem} District. 4 itre finsibar, Pinapaka^{Revenue Mandal, BhadradriKothagu-dem District'} 5 Two CCs to GP FOR^{TRIBAL WELFARE} ,High^{Court for the State of} Telanoana.at HvderabadlOUTl 6 one ct to SRl. G. slMl-iADRI,^Advocate [oPUc] I 7 iwo CO copies BM GJP

i i I I

HIGH COURT

,t,

DATED:0310412023

ORDER

WP.No.42471 ot 2017