Allowed

Avula Rajamouli v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jul 2023WP/8499/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court awarded Writ Petitioners protection of peaceful possession over disputed agricultural lands. The Court held that pending a title dispute between Forest and Revenue authorities, officials cannot forcibly change physical features or dispossess lawful possessors. A direction was issued restraining Forest officials from interfering with possession.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 directed not to interfere with peaceful possession of petitioners' lands over subject property; Forest officials directed not to dispossess or change physical features.

Avula Rajamouli Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8499 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Avula Rajamouli, Sio. Kotaiah, Aged 64^{years, Rl/o.5-19,} Kummarikunta,Karimnagar District.

¶9

1. Avula Ratnakumari, W/o. Rajamouli, Aged 48^years, R/o.^5-19, Kummarikunta, Karimnagar District

¶10

Pambala Sampath Kumar, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 36^{years, Rl/o.3-14,} . Khilavanaparthy, Dharmaram Mandal, KarimnagarDistrict

...PET|TTONER(S)

AND ;

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Forest Department,} Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of^Telangana, Hyderabad

¶16

The Forest Range Officer, Peddapalli District,^{JulapallyMandal,} Kummarikunta Village.

¶17

The Divisional Forest Officer, Peddapalli District, Julapally^Mandal, Kummarikunta Village.

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli District

¶19

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli^District

¶20

The District Collector, Peddapalli District

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ order or direction,^particularly one^{in the nature of Writ of} Mandamus declaring the action of the^respondents 3^{and 4 herein and their} subordinates in^proceeding highhandedly^{with laying of fence across petitioners} lands situated in Sy.No. 147132,^{147135 and 147127,to an extento'f 2.2000'}

¶23

2 2000, and to an extent of^'l .2000 respectively, situated at Kummarikunta Village, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli Division, Peddapalli District, and further highhandedly trying to take possession of petitioners subject lands without issuing notice to the petitioners herein and further threatening to evict the petitioners from petitioners own subject lands i.e. Sy.No. 147132 , 147135 and 147127, to an extent ot 2.2OO0, 2.2000, and to an extent of 1.2000 respectively, situatedl at Kummarikunta Village, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli Division, Peddapalli District, without following due process of Iaw in clear violation of principles of natural justice, without rnvoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as highly illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutio na l, malafide, irrational, and consequently direct the respondents herein forthwith not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and further not dispossess the petitioners from petitioners lands situated in Sy No. 147132, 147135 and 147127, to an extent of 2.2000, 2.2000, and to an extent of 1.2000 respectively, situated at Kummarikunta Village, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli Division, Peddapalti District. ,)

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstinces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein forthwith not to interfere with the peacefut possession of the petitioners and further not to proceed with any fencing around t petitioners lands or dispossess the petitioners from petitioners lands situated in Sy.No. 147132 , 147135 & 147127 , to an extent of 2.2000,2.2000, and to an extent of^'1 .2000 respectively. situated at Kummarikunta Village, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli Division, Peddapalli District.

¶26

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶27

Between:

¶28

1 The State oJ T-e.langa1g, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶29

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶30

The Forest Range Officer, Peddapalli District, Julapally Mandal.

¶31

Kummarikunta Villaqe.

¶32

The Divisional Forest Officer, Peddapalli District, Julapally tVandal, Kummarikunta Village.

¶33

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶34

AND

¶35

1 Avula Rajamouli, Sio. Kotaiah, Aged 64 years, Rl/o. 5-19, Kummarikunta,Karimnagar District.

¶36

Avula Ratnakumari, Wo. Rajamouli, Aged 48 years, Fl/o. 5-19, Kummarikunta, Karimnagar District

¶37

Pambala Sampath Kumar, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 36 years, Rl/o. 3-14, Khilavanaparthy, Dharmaram [Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶38

...RESPON DE NTS/PETITIONERS

¶39

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli District

¶40

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli District

¶41

The District Collector, Peddapalli District.

¶42

(Respondent No.4 to 6 are not necessary parties to this petition)

¶43

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶44

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 vacate the interim orders dated 06/04/2021 passed in lA No 1 of 2021 in WP No 8499 of 2021 .

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.MARIYA SULTANA

¶46

FOR SMT.K.ANNAPURNA REDDY

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4 : GP FOR FORESTS,

¶48

SRI. M. SUDERSHAN

¶49

Counsel for the Respondents No.S to 7 : SRI B.DILEEP KUMAR,

¶50

ASST. GOVT, PLEADER FOR REVENUE

¶51

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶52

HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION No.8499 of 2O2L

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

Heard Ms-Marir':r S,rllana, learned counsei who is representing Sn-rt. K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel on record for the Writ Petitioners, Sri M. Sudershan, learned Government Pleader for Forests, who is representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ancl Sri B.Dileep Kumar, Iearned Assistant Govcrnment Pleader for Revenue, who is representing Respondent Nos.5 to 7

¶55

2.' 'lhis Writ Petition is fiied seeking an order, more particularll/ in the nature of Writ. of Mandamus, io declare the action of the Forest Range Officer, Peddapalli District i.e., Respondent No.3 ancl the Divrsronal Forest Officr:r, Peddapalli District i.e., Respondent No.4 and their men, ir laying fence across the petitioners' land to an extent of Ac.2.2O guntas, Ac.2.2O guntas and Ac. 1.20 guntas, which is located in Sy.Nos.l47 132, 117 135 & 147 /27 respectively of Kummarikunta Village, Julapa11y Mandal, Peddapalli Division, Peddapalli District, as illegal and consequently to direct them not to interfere rvtth the peaccful possession and enjoyment of I the petitioners over subject propert_v.

¶56

¶57

. r--:r:

¶58

Dr.CSL,t w.P.No.8499 of 2021

¶59

Stating that the subject iand belongs to the petitioners, learned counsei for the petitioners contends that the petitioners worked for the People's War Party ald thereafter surrendered to the Government voluntarily. On that, the Government had issued proceedings a_llotting pattas in respect of the subject land and pattadar pass books were also issued. Learned counsel further states that while the petitioners were enjoying the subject land by raising trees and crops, all of a sudden, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and their men high handedly entered into the subject land and started fencing the land claiming that the land belongs to the Forest Department. Learned counsel states that as the petitioners are lawful owrlers of the subject property, hence, they are before this Court seeking necessar5r relief.

¶60

l,earned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, placed relialce upon the proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Oflicer, Julapally, vide proceedings No.B/87 /2OO2, dated 30.04.2002 by which the lald to an extent of Ac.2.2O guntas was assigned in favour of the 1"t petitioner and pattada-r pass book was issued thereafter. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Julapally,^'vide proceedings

¶61

¶62

Dr.CSL,l W.P.No.8499 ol2021

¶63

No.Bl87 12022. dated 30.O4.2OO2 by which Ac.IL.2O guntas of lald was assigned in favour of petitioner No.2 ald pattadar pass book issued in l-rer favour. Learned counsel also relied upon the proceedings issuecl by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Julapally, by u,hich Ac.1.20 guntas of land was assigned in favour of the father of the 3.d petitioner, the pattadar pass book and a,lso the proceedrngs issued in favour of the 3.a petitioner in respect of the said land vide proceedings No.B/216 12012, dated lB.O2.2O)2. The documends mentioned above establish prima facie entttlement of the p6titioners over the sr-rbject property.

¶64

Making his submission. learned Government^pleader for Forests states that though the documents support the version of the petitioners, yet, the documents that are available with the Forest Department rer,eals that the subject property is a Forest land.

¶65

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not deny the genuineness of the proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Julapally and the pattadar pass books relied upon.

¶66

,' 'il

¶67

Dr.CSL,l W.P.No.8499 oJ 2021

¶68

Having considered all these aspects, this Court is of the rriew that there is dispute between the Forest Authorities and the Revenue Authorities with regard to the claim over the subject property. However, as on this day, the subject lands are admittedly in possession of the petitioners and their possession is lawful. The documents produced before Court goes to show that the Revenue Authorities have assigned the lands in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the Forest officials cannot high handedly enter into the subject property, change the physical features and force the petitioners to 'lacate^{the property.Therefore,this Court considers desirable} to pass appropriate orders in this regard.

¶69

Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 i.e., the Forest Range Ofhcer, Peddapalli and the Divisiona-1 Forest Officer, Peddapalli and their men are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the subject properfy. In case, the Forest Department intends to claim right over the said property, they can do so by initiating appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

¶71

Dr.CSL,.t W P.No.8499 of 2021

¶72

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand.

¶73

closed.

¶74

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// o'-^{' -'}

¶75

SECTIOITOFFICER

¶76

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶77

T.he Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶78

The Forest Range Officer, Peddapalli District, Julapalty tvlandal, Kummarlkunta Village.

¶79

The Divisional Foresl Officer, Peddapalti District, Julapally [r/andal, Kummarikunta Village.

¶80

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli District

¶81

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli District

¶82

The District Collector, Peddapalli District

¶83

One CC to SRI K.ANNAPURNA REDDY Advocate IOPUCI

¶84

Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS, High Court for ihe Sta-te of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] lOrfwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 11.Two CD Copies. BSK GJP,// L/

i I

HIGH;COURT

DATED:1310712023

ORDER

WP.No.8499 ot 2021

/=-==:-:-
t-:-....'i- :t' iA ft: C
ti
-(
o,J-) 1\ [uB N8
t,,.
, .;. r 1..-
-. - --y_-r,t _.:.-"

¶91

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶92

v
v

Avula Rajamouli v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avula Rajamouli v. The 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

Mir Asad Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana

M.Arougya Raju Vs The Telangana State Waqf Board

Mohammed Mukram Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Komuravelli Murali Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Rachuri Shankar alias Shiva Shankar Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

M/s. Synycs Sabu LLP. Vs State of Telangana