Disposed

Eppakaayala Malleasham v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2024WP/11620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging survey notices concerning Survey No.139 issued to owners of land in Survey No.143/8 at Urus Village, Warangal. The court set aside the impugned notices as the proposed survey did not concern the petitioners' land.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices set aside; respondents barred from interfering with petitioners' possession pending lawful notice and reasoned orders if survey affects their rights.

Eppakaayala Malleasham Vs the State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Origin4l^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE C'V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N^{NO: 11620 0F 2020}

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Mr. Eppakayala Malleasha1n^.S4o:ql1lkaraiah'^{ASed About70 Years' Occ'} Retired Emplov""^{it"Tiiloli-z roaa, Advocat6s Colony'Hanamkonda'} Warangal District.

¶9

Kanukuntla^{Usha w/o.Kanukuntl-a-AjayKumar. aged about-4Oyears,.occ:} ' d;iil;;;' ;rprov"",'u' i'io-l -7- io.apl Advocates^-colonv' Balasamudram' ilinamfonAa'^{W'arangalCityand Urban District'}

¶10

(P2 is impleaded as^{per C'O' dt' 08'11'2024in I'A'No'2/2021)}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State Of^{Telangana, Revenue Department Representedby its Principal} Secretary

¶14

The District^{Collector, WarangalDistrict}

¶15

The Revenue^{Divisional Officer, Warangal RevenueDivision}

¶16

The Tehsildar,^{Warangal Mandal andDistrict}

¶17

The Mandal^{Surveyor Office of the Tehsildar' Warangal Mandal and District}

¶18

6-KollaRamanaRao,S/oK'Venkateshwarlu,^AgedaboveS3years,occ." ii;lil;: Rlo*H.No.'rr-)s-)ssio/g, Ni"ivuga'col"onv' Deshaipet' warangal

¶19

Veeragandham^{VeerabhadraRao, S/o V' NarsimheRao aoed about 43} vears, occ.^{Busrness. 'Ri;'1.'N;:d4lrotnui Viitrge, Ravap'arthi Mandal'} Warangal^District.

¶20

Dharavat^{Venkatesh S/o Biksha,aged about 11 years' Occ B^usiness' R/o} " il ii"ld_ r lg. ou'c"io"v. -c n=o*oiiig;dr. Narapa lle,' Rangareddy District

¶21

9 Gunthoiu Sumakanth^{Chary, S/o Padma C.hary, aged about 45 years, Occ'} " E';;i;;:;, n7o H tto e s-t+g Yeltam Bazar' warangal

¶22

l0.Gundala^{Narasimha Swamy, S/o Late G KommatrrAoed about 45 vears'} '" 5ll,"6JoL'il?MC, R/"'FT'Ni6 rI-s ioi, W'teiiinx' Ran"sashaipet'^waransal

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226^{of lhe Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated tn^{the affidavit filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or^{direction more particularly one in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus^{declaring the notices vide 'File No. A127312020dated} 04.03.2020^{and 20.05.2020 in proposingto conduct the survey and fix the} boundaries as^{illegal arbitraryand without jurisdictionand consequentlydirect} the Respondent^{No 5 to drop the proceedings in pursuanceof the notices datgd} 04.03.?020 and^{20 05 2020.}

¶25

IA NO :1OF²⁰²⁰

¶26

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased tg} stay all further^{proceedings pursuant to the noticesdated04 03.2020and} 20.05.2020,^{pending disposalof the writ petition}

¶27

lA NO:¹ OF^202'l

¶28

Between:

¶29

Kolla Ramana Rao, S/o K. Venkateshwarlu,^{Aged above53 years,} Qcc. Business,^{R/o H No. 11-23-239018,Navayuga Colony, Deshaipet, Warangal}

¶30

Veeragandham^{VeerabhadraRao,S/o} V.^{Narsimha Rao, aged about43} years,-Occ. Business, R/o H.No.4-44, Kothur Village, Rayaparthi Mandal, Warangal District.

¶31

Dharavat Venkatesh, S/o Biksha, aged about^{44 yea$, Occ Business, R/o} H.No.6-1 39, OU Colony, Chowdariguda, Narapalle, Rangareddy District.

¶32

Gunthoju Sumakanth Chary, S/o Padma Chary, aged about^{45 years,} Occ. Business,^{R/o H No.9-9.149, Yellam Bazar, Warangal}

¶33

Gundala Narasimha^Swamy, S/o^{LateG. Kommalu,Aged about45 years,} Occ. Cook in KMC, R/o H.No.'19-5-102, WaterTank,^{Rangashaipet, Warangal}

¶34

...PETlTlONERs

¶35

AND

¶36

'1 . The State Of Telangana, Revenue Department Represented by its Principal Secretary

¶37

The District Collector, Warangal District

¶38

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Revenue Division

¶39

The Tehsildar, Warangal Mandal and District

¶40

The Mandal Surveyor Office of the Tehsildar, Warangal Mandal and District

¶41

Mr. Eppakayala frrlalleasham, S7o^{Shankaraiatr,Age.d,About 70 Years,} Occ. iletired Employee, R/o.^{H.No.1-7-1088,AdvocatesColony,} Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶42

Kanukuntla Usha W/o Kanukuntla^{Ajay Kumar, aged about40 years'} Occ: Software employee,^{H.No.1-7-1088,AdvocatesColony,} Balasamudram, Hanarirkdnda, Warangal Crty^{and UrbanDistrict.}

¶43

(P2 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 08.11.2024 in^{l.A.No.2/2021)}

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} vacate the interim orders^{passedby this Hon'ble Courtin WP No.11620gf 28?0} Dt.3Ot87t2O2O and orders^{may be passed} acqordingly^{in the interesiof ju9tice.}

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI L.AR,AVIND REDDY}

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.'l to 5: GPFOR REVENUE}

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.6 to} 10:^{SRI PASHAMKRISHNA REDDY} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶49

¶50

¶51

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶52

WRIT PETITION^{No.11620 0F 2020}

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

This writ^petition is^{Iiled seeking to declare the notices} issued by respondent^{No.S, vide File No'A127312O20dated} O4.O3.202O and^{2O.05.2020, proposingto conductthe survey} and fix the boundaries as^{arbitrary, illegal and without} jurisdiction and for other appropriate^reliefs'

¶55

It is stated that^{petitionerNo.1 herein, who is the fatherof} impleaded petitioner^{No.2, was the absolute owner and} possessor of open land,^{admeasuring1200 square yards,} situated in Sttrvey No.143/8^{at Urus Village, Warangal Mandal} and District, having^{purchasedthe same vide registeredsale} deed bearing document^{No.68B7/2010 dated 27'll'2OlOand} he in turn subsequently^{executed registered gift settlement} deed in favour of petitioner^{No.2 vide document No'4937of} 2}lg. It is further stated^{that the said land wasalso} regularised by the^{Kakatiya Urban Development Authority} (KUDA), Warangal, vide^{proceedings No.KUDAL000628} l2ol517 dated 28.08.2018. It is also stated^{that when respondent} No.10 and others had been interfering^{with the peaceful}

¶56

¶57

possession and enjo.yment of petitioner No. 1 over the subject proper{z, he was constrained to file a civil suit against them, vide O.S.No.932 of 2011, on the fle of principal Junior Civil Judge at warangal, seeking permanent injunction and the same was decreed in his favour.

¶58

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said decree and notwithstanding the fact that the subject land is situated in Survey No.143/8, which has been regularised by KUDA, at the instance of respondent Nos.6 to 10, respondent No.S has issued the impqgned notices to petitioner No. 1 proposing to conduct survey concerning the jand situated in Survey No.139, even though he is neither the adjacent owner nor the interested person in the said land and thereby the respondents are interfering with their peaceful possession arrd enjoyment of the subject property.

¶59

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶60

A bare reading of the impugned notices revea-ls that the proposed survey pertains to the iand situated in Survey No.139. Therefore, the respondent authorities are entitled to issue

¶61

¶62

¶63

notices to the adjacent^{ownersof the land situated in Survey} No.139, but not^{to the petitioners,whoseland is situatedin} Survey No.143/B.

¶64

In view of the^{same, the impug-ned notices are set aside'} However, it is clarified^{that if the proposedsurvey effects the} rights of the^{petitioners,the respondentsshall issue notice to} the petitioners and^{after considering the objections, if any' they} shall pass reasoned^{orders, in accordancewith law' Till such} time, the respondents^{are directednot to interfere with the} possession of the petitioners^{in respect of the subject land,in} any manner. It is^{also made clear that if any disputearises with} regard to identification^{or classification of the lands situated in} Survey No.143/B and^{Survey No.139 of Urus Village, Warangal} District, the petitioners^{a-re at liberty to agitatetheir grievance} before the competent Court^{of law.}

¶65

The rvrit petition^{is accordingly disposed of'}

¶66

Asa sequel thereto,^{miscellaneouspetitions, ifany,}

¶67

pend.ing shall stand closed.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶68

SD/- V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' u SECTION OFFICER

¶69

¶70

To,'1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State Of Telangana' 2. The Distriit Collector,^{Warangal District} 3. The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Waiangal Revenue Division} 4. The Tehsildar, Warangal^{lVlandaland District}

¶71

¶72

'^TheMandar survevor. of[,s"_oj]tE Tehsirdar, warangar Mandar and District o 7. One gr" CC gg to SRt ro sRt^{pASHAM{RtSHNA'REboY'ndio.".t"} L.ARAVTND R-EDDY, Aa,ib1=i. ioptjcr \ B. Two CCs to Gp FoR REVENUE, Hisrico;;t'i;;ttu siitu fOpUctoiTelangana at Hyderabad [OUT] o. Two CD Copies BSR BS o.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0811112024

f
(.

ORDER

WP.No.11620 of 2020

:\
1i
,/
ll
.s'
S<br>#{
_.I
+
*
I H

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶80

WITHOUT COSTS

¶81

C\A
J/- -\t

Eppakaayala Malleasham v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eppakaayala Malleasham 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kathula Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 12 others

M/s. Sheena Agro Farms (P) Ltd. Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Manuguri Ganesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sri R.Prakash Vs Sri. Dr.S.Harish, I.A.S.

Kesineni Devolopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dr. Jitender, IPS

Smt. Deshagoni Sathamma Vs The State of Telangana