Disposed

Telugu Ranganna v. The District Collector

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024WP/18856/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Tahsildar's eviction order under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act concerning land in Sy.No.236. The High Court found their explanation and documents were not considered and that an inspection was conducted behind their back in violation of natural justice. The writ petition was held maintainable despite the appeal remedy, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 17-07-2010 set aside; matter remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh consideration after hearing petitioners; no order as to costs.

Telugu Ranganna Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^'18856 OF 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

¶9

'l. Telugu Ranganna, S/o. Late Ayanna, Agriculture, Rl/o. Kondair Village, ltikayal [/andal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶10

Boya Beechpally, S/o. Karenna, Agriculture,^{R/o. KondairVillage,ltikayal} Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶11

Musti Nadipi Laxmanna, S/o. Govindu,^{Agriculture, Rl/o. Kondair Village,} Itikayal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶12

Kurva Sanjanrra, S/o. Bheemanna, Agrlculture,^{Rl/o. KondairVillage,ltikayal} Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶13

.....PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 . The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar at Mahaboobnagar.

¶16

The Tahsildar, ltikayal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar^District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd^{respondentin issuing the impugned} proceedings dated 17-7-2010 in file No. B/2'l 55/2009 without considering^the explanation and documents filed by the^{petitionersand alsowithouthaving} jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings, as illegal, unlawful' contrary to law and "4'^{without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to dispose the} petitioners from the remaining land in Sy. No. 236' at Kondair^{Village,ltikayal} Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District in^{pursuant to the above impugned order.}

¶19

I.A.NO:1 OF 2010^{(WPMP.NO:23857} OF 2010)

¶20

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 issue interim order directing the respondents not ot disposes the petitioners from the remaining land admeasuring Ac.3-32 guntas in Sy.No236 at Kondair village, Itikayal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District in pursuant to the impugned order dated 17-7-2010 issued by the 2nd respondent in file No. Bt2155l2OOg, pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.18856 OF 2O1O

¶27

OBDER:

¶28

Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,

¶29

lcarned Assistalt Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petitioners a-re challenging the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 in File No.B/2155 l2OO9, dated 17.O7.2O7O, w"ithout considering the explanation and documents filed by the petitioners.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners belong to weaker section being BC Community and are permanent residents of Kondair Village. The petitioners are landless poor persons and eking out their livelihood by doing agriculture by taking the lands on lease. The petitioners are in possession of the

¶32

¶33

¶34

SK,J W.P.No.18856 of 2O1O la-rrd in Sy.No.236 at Kondair Village. Out of Ac.T_32 guntas in the said survey number, the Government acquired land admeasuring Ac.4_OO guntas for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections and the Government a-lso issued house site pattas in favouraof the families of weaker sections of the village and remaining land admeasuring Ac.3_32 guntas is existing as it is. The petitioners along with 42 other families are in possession and enjoyment of the land to arl extent of Ac.3_32 guntas in Sy.No.236 by excluding the land acquired by the Government. The petitioners and others are nothing to do with the acquired land to an extent of Ac.4_OO.

¶35

l,earned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents without following due process of law, interfering u,ith the possession of the petitioners and ttre petitioners approached this Court and filed W.p.No. 19525 of 2OO9 and this Court passed interim orders on 14:09.2009 directing the respondent No.2 therein not to

¶36

I \

¶37

¶38

SKJ W.P.No.18856 of 2O10

¶39

interfere with the possession of the petitioners. In view of the same, the respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioners oo 06.07.2010 in File No.B/2155 l2OO9. in response to the same, the petitioners submitted their explanation through their counsel on 12.O7.2010 by giving al1 the particulars about the land and particulars of the other occupants in the suit schedule property along with relevalt documents i.e., Xerox copy of Order in A.S.No.92 ol 1969, Khasra Pahani 1954/55, Legal Notice dated 10.08.2009, Patta Certihcates, Photograph copies. The respondent No.2, without considering the expianation submitted by the petitioners through their counsel, given a finding that there is no documentary evidence filed in support of their claim and also he relied on the inspection done by him in person behind back of the petitioners on O7.O7.2O7O and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the same, the hnding of the

¶40

¶41

SK,J w.P.No.l8856 of 201O

¶42

respondent No.2 is arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders.

¶43

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.2 submits that the Government'. has acquired the land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas out of Sy.No.236 at Kondair Village uide Proceedings No.LA4l1687 /BI, dated 09.03.1981 for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections in the Village and house site pattas have been distributed to the beneficiaries. Basing on the representation hled by the villagers dated 27.O5.2OO9, the respondent No.2 directed the Village Revenue Officer in letter dated 01.06.2009 to conduct enquiry and submit the report. The Maldal Surveyor conducted survey and submitted his report along with map stating that in the acquired land, a school building was constructed in Ac.2-00 guntas and in the balance land of l, e".Z-OO, the petitioners have kept their fodder heaps

¶44

¶45

SK,J w.P.No.18856 of 2O1O

¶46

¶47

¶48

Basing on the said report of the Surveyor, since the petitioners have unauthorizedly occupied the Government land, the respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in proceedings dated 06.07.2OlO. Considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the respondent.. No.2 passed impugned orders in Proceedings No.B12155/2009, dated L7.O7.2O1O for eviction of the petitioners under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Lald Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioners have been provided adequate opportunilr to produce relevant documentar5r evidence in support of their claim through notice dated 08.07.2009. At no point of time, the petitioners filed any document along with their reply before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 by following due process, has passed impugned orders and there is no illegality and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

.,{

--11

SK,J W.l'.No. )A856 of 2O1O

¶54

Aftr:r hearing both sides and perusing the material on record , this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.2 dated 17.O7.2O1O under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Initially, the respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitionerdrdated 06.07.2O1O under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. In response to the same, the petitioners through their counsel have submitted their explanation along with the relevant documents. In the impugned orders, the respondent No.2 stat.ing that the petitioners have failed to file any relevant documents but admitting that the petitioners through their counsel have submitted their explanation. In the explanation, the learned Counsel for the petitioners clearly mentioned the naines of other occupants and also filed the relevant documents. But, the respondent No.2 without giving any ) "r"on with regard to the documents hled by the petitioners

¶55

,'g

¶56

¶57

SK,J V'.P No. )8856 of2U l0

¶58

;

¶59

stating tl-rat the^{petitioners have faiied to file relevant} documents. It clearly^{shows that the respondent No'2} without considering the^{explanation submitted by the} petitioners has passed impugned^{orders. In view of the} same, the impugned orders^{are liable to be set aside.and} the matter has to be remanded^{for reconsideration of the} respondent No.2.

¶60

As per the impugned^{orders, after receivingthe} explanation submitted^{by the petitioners, the respondent} No.2 without issuing notices^{to the petitioners, behind back} of them has personally^{visited the suit schedule property} and conducted survey and^{given a hnding that thereare no} huts in the suit schedule^{property'The said finding is} contrary to the photographs^{hled by the petitioners'In} view of the same, the said^{action of the respondentNo'2 is} arbitrary and illegal.

¶61

¶62

¶63

SK.,T W.I' No.18856 of²⁰¹⁰

¶64

The petitioners without^{hling appeal against the} impugned orders^{have filed instant writ petition'Itis} settled law that^{without exhausting of alternative remedyof} appeal can fi1e writ^{petition, if there is any violation of} principles of natural^justice- In^{the instantcase,} .^the respondent No.2, in^{violation of principlet of natuial} justice, behind back ol the petitioners has^{visited the suit} schedule property and^{conducted survev andnot} considered the documents^{filed by the petitioners' In view} of the samr:, this writ^{petitionis maintainable.}

¶65

g. [n view of the above findings,^{the writ petitionis} disposed of bv setting^{aside the impugned ordersdated} 17 .O7 .2OlO in File No.B 12155 l2OO9^{passed bythe} respondent No.2 and remanded the^{matter tothe} respondent No.2 for reconsidering^{the matter afresh by} taking into account of the^{documentsfiled bythe} petitioners and giving an opportuniqr^{of personal hearingof} )

)^l(,J

W.P.No.18856 ol 201O

the petitioners and^pass appropriate^{orders as per law.}

¶70

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

¶71

Misceiialeous petitions, if any,^{pending in this Writ}

¶72

Petition shall stand closed.

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

¶74

SD/.P.PADMANABHA^R EDDY ASSISTANT REqIS TRAR

SE ION OFFICER

To 1. The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar at Mahaboobnagar'

¶79

The Tahsildar, ltikayal^{Mandat, Mahaboobnag,arDistrict'}

¶80

r*o CCs to GP Foit^{REVENUE,High Courtfor the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶81

a. One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶82

Two CD Copies

SA/BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711212024

ORDER

WP.No.18856 of 2010

ffir
,/t a <br>,9
(E
aI
tt}
,(,,
\tr ,a\ .('
\e{@'

¶90

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶91

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶92

@
b I

Telugu Ranganna v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telugu Ranganna v. The District Collector

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

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

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

Maddikunta Padma Rao Vs The District Collector