Dismissed

Sri Dudu David, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023WP/9304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land title dispute, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to revenue authorities to stop alleged illegal encroachment by a private developer on land assigned to his mother. The High Court held that revenue authorities lacked power to stop encroachments by private entities, directing the petitioner to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not entitled to any relief; liberty granted to take steps in accordance with law, specifically to file a civil suit.

Sri Dudu David, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9304 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Dudu David, S/o. D. Lingamaiah, Aged 58 years, Occ ; Agriculture, Rl/o.H.No.148, Dabilpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-lvtalkajigiri District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector,, Medchal-Malkajgiri District At Anthaipally.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri Detrict.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶16

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Swarna Jayanti Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

M/s. Aparna Constructions and Estates Pvt. Limited (ACEPL), Having its Registered Office at Astral Heights 802, Door No.6-3-352/2 and 3, Road No.1 , Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep by its authorized signatory Kandula Sravanthi Reddy.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the Petitioner dt. 09.01.2023 to stop the encroachment and construction activities on the land assigned to the Petitioners mother in Sy.No.9'112, to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts situated at Yallampet Village, Medchal lt/andal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as illegal, arbitrary against the Provisions of Telangana Assigned Lands (POT) Act and against atl the settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dt. 09.01 .2023 to stop the encroachment and construction activities on

¶20

the land assigned to the Petitioners mother in Sy.No.91/2, to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts situated at Yallampet Village, IVIedchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶21

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶22

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 Respondents to stop the construction activities on the land assigned to the Petitioners mother in Sy.No.91/2 to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts situated at Yallampet Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.AKKAM ESHWAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.S ; M/s.D.MADHAVI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : -

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.9304 OF 2023

¶30

ORAL ORDER:

¶31

Heard Mr. Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 4 and Mrs. D. Madhavi, leamed Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶32

In view of the nature of relief sought, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent No.6.

¶33

The petitioner is claiming that his mother was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.4-00 guntas in Survey No.91/2, situated at Yallampet Viltage, Medchal Mandal, Medchal - Maikajgiri District, and it was assigned to her. Vide memo dated 04.09.1997, respondent No.4 directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Medchal, to hand over the possession of the subject property to the mother of the petitionel i.e., Smt. Duddu Narsamma. On 08.09.1997, possession was delivered in favour of the mother of the petitioner. She died on 19.01.2005. According to the petitioner, respondent No.6 is trying to encroach into the subject property illegally. Therefore, he had

¶34

¶35

KL.J W.l'. No.910,l o1 202-t

¶36

subrnitted representation dated 09.01 .2023 to respor.rden[ No.4^{\ /ith} a request to stop the said errc.roachment. Despite receiving and acknorvledging the said representation, respnn<ient No.4 rJid not consider the same. Therefore, the present rvrit petition.

¶37

The petitioner failed to refer any provision urrder which respondent Nos.2 to 4 carr stop the alleged illegal encroachment by respondent No.6 as alleged in the writ affidavit. As per the l'elangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,2020, responderrt Nos.2 to 4 being Recording Authorities have no power to stop the alteged illegal encroachmeut by respondent No.6, a private entity. Respondent No.5 is only a Development Authority and does not have any pou,er to stop such illegal encroachment. Respondent No.6 is a private entity. If the grievance of the petitioner is against respondent No.6, he has to appioach competent Civil Court by way of filing a suit and obtain an interim injunction. Instead of doing so, he had submitted representation dated 09.01 .2023 rvith respondent lrlo.4 with a request to stop illegal encroachment which they cannot consider. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for arry relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition.

Kt-..1

W.P. No.9104 oI2023

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However,

¶42

liberty is granted to the petitioner to take steps in accordance^{with law.}

¶43

In the circurnstances ofthe case, there shall be^no order^{as to costs.}

¶44

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if^{any, pending in the}

¶45

writ petition shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/-P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶47

,TRUE COPY// Gb

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

One CC to SRI.AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

One CC to M/s.D.MADHAVI, Advocate (OPUC)

¶53

Two CD Copies

LS ,, ,r/

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610412023

ORDER

gE sTAI{,
q
\ ) ta
i 12 APn ?uil

WP.No.9304 of 2023

DISMISSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

*
.-s--

Sri Dudu David, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dudu David, 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

M.S Prabhakar Vs State Bank of India,and 2 others

Jogula Sammaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Goli Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Yagnesh Srivenkat, Vs Union of India

M/s Thopudu Bandla Chiru Vyaparula Sangam Vs the State of Telangana and 7 Others

K. Ravikiran Reddy and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others