Thunga Pochaiah, Karimnagar District v. District Collector, Karimnagar District and 3 Others

Telangana HC22 Nov 2023WP/5780/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged seizure of bore-well by revenue officials via Writ petition under Art. 226 and summary application. Court found seizure without notice contrary to law and set aside the panchanama, granting liberty to follow due procedure later.

What did the court decide?

Impugned panchanama dated 20.01.2015 set aside. Liberty granted to respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Thunga Pochaiah, Karimnagar District Vs District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5780 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thunga Pochaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Aged 65^{years, Fi./o.Ramancha Village,} Chigurumamdi Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its District Collector,^Karimnagar.

¶12

2 The Thasildar, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar Disrict.,^-

¶13

3 The Mandal Revenue lnspector-|, Chigurumamidi^{Mandal,Karimnagar} District.

¶14

4 Thunga Narasamma, Wio Mallaiah, Aged 60^{years,Ri./o Ramancha Village,} Chigurumamidi Mandal, District Karimnagar.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ or Direction more^particularly one in the nature^{of Writ of} Mandamus declaring Mandamus^{declaring impugned actionthe 2nd and 3rd} respondents in seizure of^{petitioner bore-well under coverof panchanama without} notice, enquiry and issuing^{proceedings in Sy.No. 319 at RamanchaVillage'} Chigurumamdi Mandal, Karimnagar^{Districtis illegal, contrary to law, ultra vires,} without^jurisdiction and violative of^{Article14,19,and 21 of the constitutionof} lndia and consequently direct the 2nd^{respondentand 3rd respondentto re-open} the bore-well situated in the land of^{the petitioner in Sy.No.319at Ramancha} village chigurumamdi Mandal, Karimnagar^{District by permitting the petitioner to} use the bore well in the interest^{of justice and equity.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 7686 0F 201s)

¶18

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 direct the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent to reopen the bore-well situated in the land of the petitloner in Sy.No.3'1 9 situated at Ramancha Village, Chigurumamdi Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ALLADI RAVINDER

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.4 :

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLI SRI JUSTICE^{J. SREENTVASRAO}

¶24

Writ Petition No. 5780^{of 2015}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed^{seeking the following relief:-}

¶27

"fo issue a Wit or^{Directionmore particularlyone in the} nature of Wit of^{Mand.amusdeclaingMandamus declaring} impugned oction^the 2nd^{and 3rdrespondentsin seiztre of} petitioner boreutell under^{couer of panchanama utittout} notice enquiry and issuing^{proceedings in Sg'No 319 at} Ramancha Village,^{Chigurumamdi Mand'al,Karimnagar} Dslrict is illegal,^{contrary to law, ultrauires, without} jurisdiction and uiolatiue of Article 14, 19^{aru1 21 of the} Constitution of^{India and consequentlydirect the 2nd} respondent and 3rd^{respondentto reopentlrc boretuelL} situated in the land. of^{the petitionerin Sy'No'319 at} Rcrmc,ncha Vitlage,^{ChiguntmamdiMandal'Kaimnagar} Distnct by pemitting^{the petitionerto use thebore utell in} the interest ofjustice^{and eqtitg.'}

¶28

Heard Sri Alladi^{Ravinder, learned Senior}

¶29

Counsel for the^{petitioner andlearned Assistant}

¶30

Government Pleader^{for Revenueappearingon behalfof} respondent Nos. 1 to^3.

¶31

It appears from the^{records that the notice sent} to respondent No.4 is returned^{with postal endorsementas} "Party refused to^{receive" and itarnounts to serviceof} notice.

¶32

Igarned Senior Counsel^{appearingon behalfof} the petitioner^{submitsthat the petitioneris the owner and}

¶33

¶34

possessor of the agricultura-l land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.O2 Guntas in Sy.No.319, situated at Ramancha Village, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District (presently Siddipet District) and the petitioner dug a borewell in the above said land in the month of December, 2014. At the instance of respondent No.4, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are interfering with the said bore-well and seized it under the cover of panchanama without issuing any notice to the petitioner and the same is clear violation of the principles of natural^justice.

¶35

This Court while ordering notice before admission on 09.03.2015, granted interim direction ar-rd the same is continuing till date.

¶36

Till date, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents will follow the due procedure contemplated under law

¶38

¶39

Having considered the rival submissions made

¶40

by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the impugned seizure panchanama dated 20.01.2015 issued by respondent No.3 is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶41

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs.

¶42

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶43

stand closed.

¶44

SD/. N.RAJAGOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

!t'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The District Collector,^{Karimnagar, State of Telangana.} 2. The Thasildar, Chigurumamidi^{Mandal, KarimnagarDisrict.' -} 3. The Mandal ReV-enue^{lnspector-|,ChigurumamidiMandal, Karimnagar} District.

¶50

One CC to SRI ALLADI^{RAVINDER,Advocate.} IOPUCI

¶51

S. fwo CCs to GP FOR^{REVENUE, High Courtfor the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶52

Two CD Copies. BSK GJ $sr--

¶53

HIGH COURT

¶54

DATED:2211112023

¶55

91
lifil f)
ttt t
\
d
ta
,g
j( t,f gPA<br>

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.5780 of 2015

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

r'r\t*
{('

Thunga Pochaiah, Karimnagar District v. District Collector, Karimnagar District and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thunga Pochaiah, Karimnagar District v. District Collector, Karimnagar District and 3 Others

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

Jeelani Begum Vs The District Collector

M.Anjaiah, Vs the Govt of Ap.,Revenue Dept., and 15 Others

Smt.a.Indira , Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana

B.Shankar Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Buchireddy Navad Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Thouti Raja Kumari Vs The State of Telangana