Dismissed

Smt. Guthula Satyavathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/9811/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging dispossession from land based on an order in a matter where the petitioner was not a party. The court directed the Principal Secretary to dispose of a pending revision petition within three months and restrained coercive steps on the specific land area during that period before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary directed to dispose of the pending revision petition within three months. Respondent No. 4 restrained from taking coercive steps on Survey No. 7/A to the extent of 1.32 guntas

Smt. Guthula Satyavathi Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³³⁰³ I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETTTION NO:9811 OF2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Guthula Satyavathi, -Wo. Suryanarayana, Aged g0 years, Cultivation, Rio. Kamavaram village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam Districi.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

IE_!11:_qt I.langana.,^{Rep. by principat Secrerary, Tribat Wetfare (LTR)} uepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Additional Agent to the Government and project Officer,, l.T.D.A , tshadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶13

3 The Spl.Dy.Collector (T.W), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem Distrilt

¶14

4 The Tahsildar, Kothagudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District,

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the .affidavit filed therewith, the High cou( may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents no. 4 and his subordinates in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land in Sy. No.7A to an extent of Acs.1-32 gts situated at Ramavaram village of Kothagudem Mandal of Bhadradri Kothagudem District (formerly Khammam District) on the basis of the order of the 2nd respondent dated. 20-03-2020 in cMA No. 2st2012 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2-12 gts in sy. No. 7iA situated at Ramavaram viilage of Kothagudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem to which the petitioner is not at a party, as illegal arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and is in violation of Art. 3oo A of constitution of lndia, and consequentially direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

¶17

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 20it 0

¶19

Petition unc:r Section 151 CpC praying that , the orrcunstances stated in the affidavit fire in support of the petrtion, the Hiqrr co.11 m€ry be preased to stay the drsposs,el ;rrn of the petitioner from posses,sion rrr C enloyment of the subject property i S No 7A measuring extent of Acs 1 _.j 2 kts situated at Ramavaram village , Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam Distr ct on the basis of the order of the Znc r scondent dated. 20_03_2020 in CMA Ir o 2!;120 i2, pending disposal of the !,rit p=tition in the interest of justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 20^aa

¶21

Between:

¶22

The State,rfThe State,rfState,rf

¶23

The State,rfThe State,rfState,rf Departmenr . I e{)retanat, Hvderabad^gl3lg?,!?^{,T"p oy pnncipat Secretary, Trrrr,rlW,etfare (LrR)}

¶24

The Additiona Agent to theGovernment and projec;t Offi ;:.,. I T.D.A.,

¶25

Bhadrachalan tlhadradn Kothagudem Distfl ct.

¶26

3 The Spt Dy Ct l€,ctor (T.W), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kcfl.ragudem DistrictKcfl.ragudem District

¶27

l€,ctor (T.W), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kcfl.ragudem DistrictKcfl.ragudem District ...PETITIONE RI3/RESPONDENTS

¶28

AND

¶29

1 Smt. Gurhr a Satvavathr W/o. Suryanarayana, t\ged X) years, Cultivation, R/o Ranra aram vilage. xotnagraL;1a11.;"'i, ilr,,r"il,i),. oirtri.t

¶30

2 rhe ra h:; i tr a r, Kothas udem Ma nd ar, r n"o ;;#,t*tj8l,?,i$f'5,Hf lJlo nlt *

¶31

...RESPONDI:hIT/RESPONDENT

¶32

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the cir<;umstances stated in the affidavit file<t i support of the petrtion, the High Gourt rrray be pleased to vacate the inteilm o ier granted in l.A No 1 of Z02O in Wp f,to Stg11 of 2020, dated 0910712020

¶33

Counsel for the^petitr rner: SRl. MANDAPATI MURALI KRISHItA

¶34

Counsel for the Re,sp rndents: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (TL}lt

¶35

The Court made the f ,llowing: ORDER

¶36

-It-,

¶37

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE .'.SREENTVAS RAO

¶38

W.P.No.9E11 OF 2O2O

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamaus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 and his subordinates in trying to dispossess the petitioner lrom the subject land in Sy.No.7A to an extent of Acs. 1.32 guntas situated at Ramavaram village, Kothagudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District on the basis of the order of respondent No.2 dated 20.O3.2O2O in CMA No.35/2O12 in respect of land to an extent of Acs.2-12 guntas in Survey No.7/A situated at Ramavaram Village to which the petitioner is not at all a party, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of prinviples of natural justice and is in violation of Articte 3OOA of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

¶41

Heard Sri M.MuraIi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs. 1.32 guntas in Survey No.7/A situated at Ramavaram village,

¶43

¶44

-I

¶45

Bhadradri I. rthagudcm District. Rcspondert Nt initiated the proceed;ngls irgainst the pr:t il ioncr here n u dt -'lR Case No.2l9^/ 2Cto /K(iM^{exercisingpou,ers} conf,trrcd r.nd:r Andhra Pradesh S,c) erluled Area Land Transfer Rr:gulari: n t of 1959 Amendt'd R gulation 1 of l97o(herein alter i-r lerr ed to as 'Regulat.rons for brevity) and passed €.jectn:ct.rt order on 03.08.200'l. Aqgrieved by the said order the l)etiticr)or f led appeal C.M.A.t'r-o. 9 oi 2010 bcfore rcspondcnt No..:. R:storLdent No.2 u,ithout prol :rly considering thc grounds rat s;e<l b 1 tlte petirioner dismisscd th :tpoeal on 28.08.20 1O. Aggrieve,d by r.'rc sraid orders the pel ition r filed revision pctition before re;1;onrlent No.1 invoking thr provisions of Scction 6 oI Rr:gula ,i, )ns which s , pending.

¶46

]le h rther submits that respondent No. 1 is trying to disposst:ss ti e petitioner from the subject lzrncl plrr.suirnt to the order passer in C.M.A.No. 19 of 201O dated 28.Ctt.2O tO and in C.M.A.No.25 rf 2O12 dated 20.O3.2O2O, though the l)r)titjoner is no way concern( I with C.M.A.No.35 of 2O12 datecl 20.Ot).2O2O.

¶47

Lea:n d^(iovernment Pleader appearing :tr r rr:spondent Nos.1 to^zl v hemently contended that the sr-rbjec rnatter of the writ petttior r ses from the orders passed b1 resp>r.detrt No.3 in LTR Case \t 219 l2OO7 IKGM dated 03.08.2007 arr:l rr:spondent

,-'t

, J

No'2 has righrlv dismissed rhe appeal c.M.A.No. 19 of 20ro, confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3, on 2g.og.2010. He further stated that the petitioner is no way concerned with the land covered under the C.M.A.No.3S of 2Ol2 d_ated. 2O.O3.2O2O and the allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.4 is trying to dispossess the petitioner pursuant to the same is not tenable under law.

¶52

Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner filed the Revision petition on 3o.09.2oro exercising the powers conferred under Section 6 of Regulations before respondent No. I aggrieved by the order dated 2a'o8.2o7o passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No. 1 while admitting the revision petition issued Memo No.g3S3/LTR _2/2O1O dated 02.11.2010 and the said revision petition is pending.

¶53

In view of the same, respondent No.I is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, after giving opportuniqz to the parties, in accordance with law. Till such time respondent No.4 is directed not to take aly coercive steps in respect of subject land to an extent ofAcs. 1.32 guntas in

¶54

¶55

Survey No.7, t situated at Ramavaram(') Kolhagudem(M)

¶56

Khammarn(t))

¶57

Accord^-rgdy, the rvrit petition is disposec of. ll: cor;ts

¶58

As a s :c,ucl thereto, miscellaneous a1:,plicati rns, if any,

¶59

pending rn th s writ petition, shall stand closerl

¶60

To,

¶61

SD/- K.T iF:EEIIAMA MURTHY ASSTSiTATT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII / .... ::iEi:TIUN oFFtcER

¶62

'1 . The princical lecretary,. Tribal Welfare (LTR) Departmer rt Seoretariat State of Td ar ,^The lana, Hyderabad. 2. The Addrtiona Bhadrachalan tx#..Eqtf?3ffi..,ffiib?ili^{Projer1 orr :e:rI r D A,} 3. The Spt Dy C, 4. The Tahsiidar strict. 5. One CC to Sr 6. Two CCs to ( :i Telangana. [C l?$tii'tffiL*'r*+ii}'il*;nrl:**' 7. Two CD Corlie i TJ GJPN-_..-.

¶63

HIGH COUR T

¶64

DATED:04,t0112023

¶65

.-a
/
t
{
It I i., $t

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.9811 ct 2020

¶68

DISPOSING 0F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS.

Smt. Guthula Satyavathi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guthula Satyavathi 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

Kakarla Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kurakula Sai Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Sk. Ishrath Khan, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

G.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Enti Venkateswarlu, Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Orange Avenues Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others