Disposed

Narige Bothaiah, Adilabad Dist. v. the State of Ts.,Social Welfare,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

Telangana HC23 Sept 2024WP/16546/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the 2nd respondent's inaction on suit papers under the A.P.S.L.T.R. Act. The court held that the Special Deputy Collector is the competent authority to try such cases. The petitioner was directed to approach the Collector within a week, with the authority to decide within four weeks, while an interim stay remains in force.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without costs. The petitioner is directed to approach the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Utnoor, for disposal within one week.

Narige Bothaiah, Adilabad Dist. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16546 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Narige Bothaiah, S/o.Kondaiah, aged 75^years, Occ. Agriculture,^R/o.Saleguda Village Asifabad lvlandal, Adilabad District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Telangana, rep by its Prl Secretary, Social Welfare Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Project Officer, l.T.D.A at Utnoor, Adilabad District.

¶13

Arigela Tirupathi, S/o. Mallaiah, Occ. Driver, R/o. Saleguda Village^Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶14

Arigela Ravi, S/o. Mallaiah, Occ. Labour R/o. Saleguda Village Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^maybe pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not^passing any orders on the injunction application filed by the petitioner in the suit for^perpetual injunction with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.4.35 gts in Sy No. 1 15/AA,. situated at Saleguda Village, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad Diskict against the respondents 3 and 4 herein, though the 2nd respondent has received the injunction application and suit papers on 25.04.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

¶17

petitioner land admeasuring Ac.4.35 gts in Sy No. 1 '15/AA, situated at Saleguda Village, Asifabad Mandal, Adiiabad District

¶18

|.A.NO:1 OF 2016^(W PMP.NO:20411 OF 2016

¶19

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 grant interim injunction against the respondents 3 and herein, their agents, relatives and farm servants permanently from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land to an extent of Ac. 4.35 gts. in Sy. No, 115/ AA, situated at Saleguda Village, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District till the disposal of the suit, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SURENDER REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : SRI J.ASHVINI KUMAR

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE MRS ]USTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶25

WRIT PETITION^{No.16546 of2016}

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri S. Surrender^{Reddy, learnedcounsel} appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner,tearned Assistant} Government Pleader^{for SocialWelfare, appearing on} behalf of respondent^{Nos.1 and 2, Sri J. Ashvini Kumar,} Iearned counsel appearing^{on behalfof respondentNos'} 3 and 4.

¶28

2 The oetitioner DDTOaC edt e^Cou see rnq

¶29

praver as under:

¶30

" . . . .. to issue a Writ^{Order or direction more} particularly one in the nature^ofMandamus declaring the action^{of the 2nd respondentin not} passing any orders on the^{injunction appllcation} filed by the^{petitioner in the suit for perpetual} injunction with^{regard to the land admeasuringAc'} 4.35 gts in Sy.No.^{115/AA,situatedat Saleguda} Village, Asifabad^{Mandal,Adilabad Districtagainst} the respondents 3^{and 4 herein thoughthe 2nd} respondent^{has receivedthe injunctionapplication} and suit^{papers on 25.04.2016 as illegal, arbitrary} and against^{the principlesof naturaljusticeand} consequently^{dlrect the respondents 3 and 4 not to}

¶31

¶32

2 wP_t6546_2016 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner land admeasuring Ac.4.35 gts in Sy.No. 115/AA situated at Saleguda Village, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District and to pass...,,,

¶33

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.4.35 guntas in Sy.No. 11S/AA, situated at Saleguda Village, Asifabad Mandal and District, having purchased the same on L4.04.1969 from its original owner Arigela Lingaiah, who executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and since then the petitioner has been enjoying the said property. The respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the grandsons of Arigela Lingaiah, have been trying to interfere with the said property and on 01.03.2016 they damaged the standing cotton crop and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction before the 2nd respondent along with an application seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent Nos.3 and 4 over the land of the petitioner but the 2nd respondent did not entertain the said application and the suit papers. Hence, the writ petition.

¶34

¶35

J wP 16546²⁰¹⁶

¶36

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Social} Welfare, brings on^{recordwritteninstructions issued by the} Addl. Agent to^{Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor/} znd respondent vide^{Rc.No. A4/CPC/3t6/20t6, dated} 13.07.20t7.

¶37

A bare^{perusal of the said proceedings indicates that the} writ petitioner had^{filed a suit beforethe 2nd respondent} under Order 39^{RulesL and2read with Section 151 of C'P'C'} for injunction over^{the suit land to an extent of Ac'4'35} guntas in Sy.No' 115/AA,^{situatedat SalegudaVillage'} Asifabad Mandal^{and District and the samewas numbered as} the petitioner thereafter^{filed the} A4/CPC|3L6/2016,^and present writ Petition questioning the action of^{the znd} respondent in not^{passing any orders on the application filed} by the^petitioner.

¶38

A bare^{perusal of the writteninstructions of the Addl'} Agent to Government^{and Project Officer, ITDA,Utnoor/2nd} respondent^{videRc.No. A4/CPC/3|6/2016,dated 13'O7'2017} indicates that^{entire case records had been transferredto} Special Deputy^{Collector, (TW), Utnoor, who is competent} authority^{to conduct trial and find out the contraventionof the}

¶39

¶40

wP t6546 2016

¶41

provisions of A.P.S.L.T.R.ACt, 1959 and its amendment Regulation 1 of 1970. The said written instructions dated t3.O7.2017 discloses the office of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Utnoor having acknowledged the receipt of the original file No. Rc.No.A4ICPC/3t6/20t6.

¶42

The relevant oortion of the said written irr-+Frr-+; lic da+6d l2 rt 7.2 L7 cted h n Aa f

¶43

"In view of the above, after verificaUon of the document filed by the petitioner, it is revealed that, the land dispute in sy.No.115/AA to an extent of Ac.4.35 gunta situated at Salewada Village of Asifabad Mandal. But the SDC (TW), Utnoor is the competent authority to initiate trial and find out the contravention of the provisions of A.p.S.L.T.R. Act, 19590 and its amendment Regulation 1 of 1970. But the petitioner had filed a suit directly before this Court. Hence. the total orio nal file bea ri q No.A4lC PCl3L6t20 6 is tran rred to vou to finalize the case. And also both the parties are directed to approach the Special Deputy Collector, (TW), Utnoor for further course in the above suit.

¶44

N.F.P. (03) c.F.P. ( 128)

¶45

TOTAL: 131

¶46

l wP 16546²⁰¹⁶

¶47

Therefore,^it is directed^{you to finalize} the case^{under provisions ofA'P'S'L'T'R' Act'} 1959 and^{its amendment Regulation} .l^{of t97O"'}

¶48

7 This cou rt Dassed ord rd^ated 19. 05.2016ⁱⁿ la vou r oft^epetitinerob rvln^qasunder:

¶49

"Notice before^admission'

¶50

Learned counsel^{for thepetitioner is} permitted to take^{outpersonal noticeto} respondents^by registered^postwith acknowledgment^{due and file proof of servlce} before registry.

¶51

Post after^{two weeks.}

¶52

Till then, Status Quo^{to be maintained"'}

¶53

Taking^{intoconsideration' the factsand} circumstances^{of the case, and the contents of the} writteninstructionsdated13.oT.2olT(referredtoand extractedabove)thepetitionerisdirectedtoapproach theofficeoftheSpecialDeputyCollector'(TW)'Utnoor for disposal^{of the case within one week (O1) week} from the date^{of receipt of the copy of the orderand} upon the^{petitionerapproachingthe office ofthe} Special^{Deputy Coltector(TW) Utnoor for disposal of} the case,^{the said Authority shall disposeoff the same}

¶54

6 wP 16546 20 16

¶55

within four (O4)weeks thereafter in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural iustice by giving notice to all concerned. The interim order passed by this Court dated 19.05.2016 shall be continued till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent seeking interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.3 and 4 over the land of the petitioner by passing of appropriate orders on the said application by the 2nd respondent.

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I - - ',-

¶58

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGI AR //TRUE COPY//

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

¶61

JP^ I'l_.f 1^Secretary, .Socia^{I Wetfa re Depa rtment Secretari at, State} of

¶62

r erangana at Hyderabad. 2. The P-roject Officer, l.T.D.A al Utnoor, Adilabad District

¶63

Two CCs to GP FOR SOCTAL WELFAnE , High Court ior tne State of Telan-gana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4 One CC to SRI S.SURENDER REDDY, Advocate IOpUCI 65 Two One CD CC to CopiesSRI J.ASHVIN| KUMAR, Advocate tOpircl

SA LS w

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310912024

ORDER

1
I
P
.9
s
o0,tl <br>
rr ntH

WP.No.16546 of 2016

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

q ceP?te)> ).Y t6Yr-

Narige Bothaiah, Adilabad Dist. v. the State of Ts.,Social Welfare,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narige Bothaiah, Adilabad Dist. v. the State of Ts.,Social Welfare,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

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

Siluveru Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. G. Ravichandar Vs Dr. J. Venkati

Gudise Neelamma, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Kakani Vinod Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and Another

Granite Mart Ltd., Vs Southren Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Granite Mart Ltd., Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited