Disposed

E. Narender Kumar v. Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024WP/18459/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions by following a batch decision in WP.No.19203 of 2010, directing respondents to consider regularization claims under G.O.Ms.No.166 without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents Nos.1 and 2 directed to consider claim for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008 and pass appropriate orders with notice and opportunity for personal hearing within three mon

E. Narender Kumar Vs Government of A.P. Rep. by its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰²¹

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOs: 18459 and 19204 ot 2070

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 18459 OF 2010

¶9

Between:

¶10

E. Narender Kumar, S/o Late E.N. Shetty, aged about 47^years, Occ: Business, Rl/o Road No.14, Door No.435, Baghyanagar Studio Compound, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariate, Kh airtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶14

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad

¶15

The District Collector, Hyderabad District.

¶16

CT of R1 is amended as per C.O. dt. 17.12.2024 in lA.No.1/2023

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court may be} pleased to i) issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire record of the Respondentsⁱⁿ oonnection with the recommendations pertaining the application made by the^petitioner and quash the Letter No. 12|142OB|2OOB dt. 27-5-2010 issued by the Third Respondent as being arbitrary capricious, unreasonable harsh besides^being illegal and consequently set aside the same;

¶19

ii) direct the third respondent to implement the recommendations of the state Level Regularization Committee in toto and execute a conveyance deed in favour

.. '.'!{

.::;

{

of the applicant in accordance with the conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.166 dt. 16-2-2008.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L.VENKATESHWAR RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 19204 OF 2010

¶27

Between:

¶28

Smt. C.P.B.Lakshmi, Wo. C.B.Prasad, aged about 51 years, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o. Road No.14, Door No.435, ln Baghyanagar Studio Compound, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶32

2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad

¶33

3 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to i) issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the entire record of the respondents in connection with the recommendations pertaining the application made by the petitioner and quash and set aside the Letter No.121142OB|200B dated 27.5.2010 issued by the third respondent as being arbitrary, capricious unreasonable harsh besides being illegal, and consequently set aside the same,

¶36

ii. Direct the First respondent Government to consider the recommendations of the State Level Regularization Committee without prejudice sought to be created by the third respondent and accordance with the conditions mentioned in G.O.ms.No.1 66 dated 1 6.2.2008.

¶37

l.A. NO: 2 OF

¶38

10 WPM^{P. NO:24324 oF 2010}

¶39

Petition^{under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Court may be pleased to} staytherecommendationLetterNo.l2ll42o}t2008dated2T.S.2oloaddressed by the third^{respondentto the second respondent reiecting the apprication made} by the^{petitioner herein seeking regularizationof his land under G'O'Ms'No'166} dated 16.2.2008^{and all proceedings pursuant thereto'}

¶40

IA NO: 10F²⁰²³

¶41

Petition under^{order 6 rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affklavitfiled in support of the petition' the High} Court may^{be pleasedto permitthe Petitioner herein to amend the cause title of} No.1 as:^{"THESTATE OF TELANGANA Representedby its} Respondent Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department'Dr' BR. Ambedkar TelanganaState} na State^{INSTEAD OF The} Secretariate, Khairtabad, Hyderabad,^Telanga Government of Andhra Pradesh^RePresented by the Secretary,^Revenue Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad'

¶42

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRI L'VENKATESHWARRAO} Counsel for^{the Respondents:AGPFOR ASSIGNMENT} The Court^{made the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶43

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶44

WRIT PETITION Nos.18459 and^{192o'4 of2OLO}

¶45

COMMON ORDER:

¶46

The issue involved in both the Writ^{Petitions is one and} the same, therefore, both the^{petitions are taken up for hearing} together and being disposed of by way of^{this common order-}

¶47

Heard both sides and perused the entire^rnaterialon record

¶48

When the matter is taken up for hearing^{r-he learned} counsel for the petiiioners would submits that the lis in^both the writ petition is squarely covered by orders^{passed by the} Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.L92O3 ol-^{2O1O and} batch, dated 22.08.2024, therefore, requested to^pra55 similar ordcrs in these matters also.

¶49

Learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Assignment appcarir-rg lor the respondents have not di-';puted the

¶50

¶51

submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions.

¶52

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court in the writ petitions referred to above and for the reasons a-tike, both the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of orders passed in W.P.No. 19203 of 2OtO and batch, dated 22.O8.2O24.

¶53

Taking into consideration the facts and circumsta,ces of these cases, without expressing any opinion on merits of these cases, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of the subject propert5r in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.20Og and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners including personal hearing.

¶54

¶55

With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶56

The Registry is directed to annex copy of Order dated 22.08.2024 passed in W.p.No. L92O3 of 2010 arrd batch.

¶57

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any

¶58

pending, in these writ petitions shall stand closed .

¶59

sD/-v. KA HA ASSISTANT^REGI

To,

/TTRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

The Secretary,^Revenue Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of} Telangana.

¶64

The Chief^{Commissioner of Land Administration'Hyderabad}

¶65

The Dislrict^{Collector, Hyderabad District'}

¶66

One CC to^{SRI L VENKATESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶67

Two ccs^{to GP FORASSIGNMENT, High court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶68

Two CD^CoPies

¶69

(Along with the copy^{of order dated 22'08'2024'in W'P'No'19203of 2010} & batch)

BSR BS

uf#

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1711212024

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.18459 and 19204 of 2010

¶77

'1 t s
3$
th
.i..i
-,_:t,,,1,", ,';
.. lr ; _2

¶78

DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETTTIONS, WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

b,\e(
W

¶80

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶81

: WRIT PETITION Nos.192O3. L92O7. L92Oa. 19211^and L9366 of 2O1O

¶82

COMMON ORDER: lPer^{tle Hon'bleSri Justice J.SreeniuosRool}

¶83

These writ petitions are frled for the following relief

¶84

". ..to i issue a writ, order or direction^more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the entire record of the respondentsⁱⁿ connection with the recommendatiorrs^pertaining the application rnade by the^{petitioner and quash} and set aside the Letter No.12/l42Oa/2OOa, dated 27 -O5.2O 10 issued by the third respondent as being arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, harsh besides being illegal and conseqlrently^set aside i the same ii) Direct ttrc First^respondent Goverhment to consider the^{recornmendations of} the State t evel Regularization^{Committee without} prejudice sought to be created by the^third respondent and accordance^{with the conditions} mentioned in G.O. Ms.No.¹ 66^{dated I 6.O2.2OO I -"}

¶85

I 2. Heard Sri L. Venkateshwar^{Rao, learned counselfor} i the petitioners and Sri D.V.Chalapathi^{Rao, learned} i Government Pieader for^{Revenue(Assignment) appearing} on behalf of reipondent^{Nos.1to 3 in all the writ petitions'}

¶86

Brief facts of the case:

¶87

The claim of the^{petitioners in theabove writ} petitions is that they are^{the owners and possessorsof} plots admeasuring 95O square^{yards bearing plot No'3,}

¶88

¶89

{

¶90

13BO square yards bearing^{plot No.9, 1380 square yards} I bearing plot No.4, 95O square^{yards bearing plot No.7 and} I 13BO square yards bearing^{plot No-B respe;tivelY, situated} I at Survey No. 129l56, Road^No.14, lBanjara^Hills, Hyderabad falling under Shaikpet^{Mand4 and the same} I were inherited frorn their father Iate^{p. Rangaswamy,} t under a Memorandum of Oral Partition and^Family Settlement. Originally petitioners' father purchased land to an extent of Acs.2.1O guntas in year 7964 F o 1640 ot L964 through registered sale deed document iNI I and since then they have been ''' and enjoyment of thc said property.

¶91

I*"'*"-', 3.1 When respondcnt Nos.l and 3 hT tried to evict their father alleging that the above land belonged to Government, their fathcr and B gar Studios together have filed a suit in O.S.No.6O9 of 98 1 on the frle of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Cogrt, Hyderabad against respondent Nos.1 and 3 seeking declaration declaring thern zr.s absolute owners and pqssessors of suit schedule property and thc said suit was dismissed by its I judgrner-rt and dccrcc dated 24.O9.1982.

¶92

¶93

; !i' I : ! I Ii t I i iiIIi I I { ; I i t I I I r I I t I t

¶94

¶95

3.2 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, father filed appeal in C,C.C.A. No.44 of 1983 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same was allowed and the matter was remitted back to lower Court by its order dated 26.06.1995. Thereafter, the learned V Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 1O.1f.1998. Aggrieved by the same, they have frled appeal in C.C.C.A. No.22 of 1999 before this Court and the sarne was allowed by its judgment and decree dated O1.O4-2O2L. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.l and 3 have filed Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated O1.O4.2O21 of this Court and confirmed the Judgment and decree dated lO.l 1.1998 of the trial Court.

¶96

3.3. During the pendency of the above said appeal, C.C.C.A. No.22 of 1999 respondent No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No. 166, Revenue (Assignment POT) Department dated 16.O2.2OOa for regularization of assigned Government lands which are in occupation/encroachment on payment basis. Pr-rrsuant to the said G.O., petitioners

¶97

¶98

<br>

¶99

have submitted applications seeking regulatization and basing on the same, respondent No.2 had recomnlended the claim of the petitioners through minutes of meeting of the State Level Committee held on 19.O4.2O10. When the said proceedings are pending before respondenl. No.1, respondent No.3 through letter No.12l14208/2OO8, dated 27 .O5 .2O lO , submitted report to respondent No.2. stating that the petitioners are not entitled to seek regularization in respect of the subject property. Questioning the above said report the petitioners filed the presentiwrit petitions.

¶100

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are entitled for grant of regol,arizat-ion in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 166, dated 16.O2.2OOa and the claim of the petitioners was recommended by respondent No.2 through minutcs of meeting darted 19.O4.201O and when the issue is pending before rcspondent No.1, respondent No.3 submitted the alleged rcport dated 27.O5.2O1O. behind back of the petitioners even without giving any notice and opportunity to thc pctitioners and the same is gross violatiou of principles o[ naLural justice and contrary to law.

¶101

¶102

: I

¶103

, 5. Per contra, learned Governrnent Pleader for Revenue lt (Assignment) submits that the petitioners have filed , comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title and perpetual I I injunction and the said suit was dismissed on 24.09.1982. i Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeal in C.C.C.A. I II No.44 of 1983 wherein the matter was remitted back to lower I Court on 26.06.1995. Thereafter, the said suit was again I dismissed on 1O.11.1998 which was challenged in C.C.C.A. I I No.22 of 1999 before this Court and the same was allowed on I II Ol .O4.2O21 . Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. I has I approached thd Hontrle Apex Court by way of Civil Appeal II

¶104

I No.4669 of 2022 and the same was allowed by setting aside the I judgment and decree dated 0 1 .04.2021 and confirming the I

¶105

III judgment and decree dated 10. 11.1998 passed by the trial I I Court and the same has become hnal. Hence, the petitioners are I

¶106

IIi not entitled to leek regularization in terms of G.O.Ms,No.166 i dated 16.02.20O8 ald they are not entitled any relief much less the relief sought in the wril petitions.

¶107

¶108

;

¶109

Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply submits that in spite of dismissal of the suit which was conlirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners are

¶110

¶111

entitled for grant of regularization of the subject pr:operty, pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No. 166 dated 16.02.2008, by paying requisite amounts

¶112

Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after pemsal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioners hav'e filed the present writ petitions questioning the report submitted by respondent No.3 dated 27.O5.2O10 before respondent No.2 which is internal correspondence between respondent Nos.3 and 2. As on today, respondent Nos.1 and 2 lrave not taken any decision and pass,:d any order about the regulari zation of the subject prop,rrty in favour of the petitioners, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 166 dated 16.O2.2OOa and the applications of thc petitioners are still pending consideration. The above said aspects were not disputed by the learned Government Pleader lor R<:venue (Assignment).

¶113

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, lvithout expressing any opinion on merits of the case, responclent Nos. 1 ancl 2 are clirected to consider the claim of the petitioners for

' ,,x /' t. ti

I : I t I

; I I i I I

¶120

I I

¶121

reglrlarization i of the subject property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.O2.2OO8 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners including personal hearing.

¶122

9 . With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶123

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶124

ALOK ARADIIE, CJ

¶125

J. SREENI/AS RAO, J

¶126

22.d August, 2024 PSW

E. Narender Kumar v. Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Narender Kumar v. Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Narayana Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Gandla Pushpamanemma Vs The Government of Telangana

Smt. Muduganti Bhagyalaxmi Vs The Joint Collector

Srb Housing Developers Private Limited, Vs Government of Telangana

Telugu Ranganna Vs The District Collector

Maddikunta Padma Rao Vs The District Collector