Disposed

Dara Phani kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2024WP/11896/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a land measurement order. It directed the authorities to consider and dispose of a regular appeal filed before the respondent with a deadline, maintained the interim status quo, and directed action under the Land Encroachment Act within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order disposed directing respondent to dispose of appeal within reasonable period; interim order on status quo continued; Tahsildar directed to act under Land Encroachment Act within eight weeks.

Dara Phani kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132s21

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 11896 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . Dara Phani kumar, S/o: Dara Tatarao,^{32 years} cultivation

¶10

Daru Tatarao, S/o: late Ramalingam 55^years cultivation

¶11

Dara Mallikarjunarao, S/o: late venkatramayya^{56 years cultivation} Atl are r/o Dammapeta vandm Bhadradri Khothagudem district

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

2 The Agent to Government, Bhadradri Khothagudem district

¶16

The Assistant Agent to Government, Project officer,^{ITDABhadrachalam} Bhadradri Khothagudem district

¶17

The Special Deputy collector tribal welfare, Bhadrachalam^Bhadradri Khothagudem district

¶18

5 The Tahsildar, Dhammapeta Bhadrad ri Khothagudem district

¶19

6 Soyam Rammurthy, S/o: Chenchulu Major, occu.^{not known r/o urban coolly,} Dhbmmapeta Bhad radri Khothagudem district

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the^{action of the respondentNo. 4} issued the Memo vide LTR case 41l2O23lDPT^{dated154-2024regardingac 61-} 28 gts in sy.No.173 including ac.3-07^gts in^{sy.No.17311situatedat} Peddagollagudem village of Dhammapeta^{Mandalis illegal and arbitraryand}

¶22

consequently direct the respondents to exclude the land of ac.3-07 gts out of ac.61-28^{gts in} sy.No.173 (sy.No.173/1 ) situated at^{peddagoflagudem} viilage of Dhammapeta^Mandal.

¶23

IA NO :1 OF 2024

¶24

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 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land of ac.3-07 gts out ot ac.61'28^gts in sy.No.173 (sy.No.17311) situated at^{peddagollagudem} village of Dhammapeta Mandal.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MUMMANENI SRIN|VASA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4; AGp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.6:--

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION o.11896 ot 2024

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5.

¶34

The oetitioners aonroached the^{Court seekino} Draver as under:

¶35

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 issued the Memo vide LfR case 4L/2023/DPf dated 15.04.2024 regarding Acs.61-28 gts in Sy.No.173 including Acs.3-07 gts in Sy.No.173l1 situated at Peddagollagudem Village of Dhammapeta Mandal is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to exclude the land of Acs.3-07 gts out of Acs.61-28 gts in Sy.No.173 (Sy.No.173l1) situated at Peddagollagudem Village of Dhammapeta Mandal and to pass orders in the circumstances of the case."

¶36

¶37

This Court^yide its order dated O1.OS.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.11896 of 2024 passed interim order observino as under:

¶38

"The respondents are directed to maintain 'status quo' in respect of land to an extent of Ac.3-07 guntas out of Acs.61-28 guntas in Sy.No.173 (Sy.No.17311) situated at Peddagoltagudem Viilage of Dhammapeta Mandal, Bhadadri Kothagudem District, for the period of eight (B) weeks from today."

¶39

It is represented by Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao,

¶40

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that upon advice of the counsel on record, appearing on behalf of the^petitioners, the^petitioners herein preferred an Appeal dated 22.LO.2024 under Section 8(2) of T.S Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation-1/1959 and therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to pursue the said remedy having filed Appeal before respondent No.3 against the impugned^proceedings of respondent No.4 dated t5.04.2024 on 22.LO.2024.

¶41

Learned Assistant Government^pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4

I I

( t

submits that respondent No.3 may be directed to dispose of the Appeal in accordance to law, within a reasonable period.

¶48

aforesaid 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the Appeal preferred by the petitioners before respondent No.3 on 22.LO.2024, aggrieved against the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Memo in LTR Case No.41I2O23/DPT dated 15.O4.2O24 pertaining to land to an extent of Acs.61-28 guntas in Survey No.173 situated at Peddagollagudem Village of Dhammapeta Mandal, Bhadadri Kothagudem District, directing the concerned Tahasildar to take action as per the provisions of land Encroachment Act, 1905 on merits within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law inconformity with the principles of natural justice by

¶49

¶50

givang notice to all concerned. Till the^{Appealpreferred} by the petitioners before^{respondentNo.3 is heard,} considered and disposed of^{on merits bypassing} appropriate orders,^{the interim orderpassedby this} Court on O1.O5.2O24^{in I.A.No.1 ot 2024 shall continue'}

¶51

However, there shall^{be no order as to costs'}

¶52

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

¶53

in the Writ Petition shall^{also standclosed'}

¶54

SD/.N.^SRIHARI ASSISTANTIREGISTRAR

¶55

/ffRUE^COPY//

¶56

SECTIdN^OFFICER

¶57

To, 1 . The Principal^{Secretary',Social welfare Department Secretariat Buildings'The} ' ii}'t" oii6ingun", HYderabad'

¶58

?i#i:3,:..jfl&"'"""{l{xTi":ll*'t:iJ:rsHl"il$il['anuo'""n"r"

¶59

,' iil'$3l*B$ff;t":ii:",i:li:il,r^{werrare' Bhadracharam Bhadradri}

¶60

+:H:ttsfu,ii*'Ult.'ji$[:[3'}li:,Hl$],[h'"'unn'n"'

¶61

; ?Iderabadl?a'"'Lt^{for Revenue' Hish court for the State of relangana' at} Hvderabad[OPUC] S. tti,o^{CD CoPies} TJ GJP V

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611112024

ORDER

WP.No.11896 of 2024

( o* -rdE .s jh .t'<br><br>l) (
0 0 JAl\t 2025
zj
c
Sr,/.rcse9

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶69

WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

l3 (t'*
W

Dara Phani kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dara Phani kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Muralidar Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Energy,Hyd,and Anot

K.U.V.S.S. Srihari, Vs The State of Telangana

Karshak Art Printers, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Balne Kamalakar, S/o. Venkatesham, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. M. Savitha Vs The State of Telangana

S. Sairam Vs The State of Telangana