Dismissed

Nandigam Bikshamaiah, S/o. Late N. Venkaiah, v. The State of Telangana, Rep

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024WP/24420/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the failure of revenue authorities to act against alleged encroachment on family land granted as Balwata Inam. The court found the petition lacking merits due to failure to produce valid documents proving possession, thereby negating the plea of illegal encroachment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nandigam Bikshamaiah, S/o. Late N… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24420 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

'l . Nandigam Bikshamaiah, S/o. Late N. Venkaiah, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Madhavarainigudem Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

Nandigam Venkaiah, S/o. Late N.Ramaswami, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Madhavarainigudem Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

Nandigam Venkat Ramulu, S/o. Late N. Gopaiah, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Madhavarainigudem Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

Nandigam Venkanna, S/o. Late N. Ramaiah, Occ Agriculture, R7o. Madhavarainigudem Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1- The State of Telangana, Rep, by its principal secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District., -

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶17

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more partlcularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any actlon^against the illegal encroachments made in the lands in Sy.No. 157 and its sub divisions, situated at Madhavarainigudem Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, NalgoMa District though the lands in Sy.NO. 157, to an extent of 4c.2.20^gts were^given to the fathers and grand father of the petitioners and other Schedule Caste families under Balwata lnam as these persons have served the Nizam Nawabs, in spite of the representation submitted by the^petitioners and^{othersis nothing} but illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law and is a clear case^{of violation} of^principles of natural^justice.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2^015(V1/ PMP.^NO: 31690^{OF 2015)}

¶21

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 pleasedto direct} the respondents to consider the representation^{submittedby the petitioners and} pass necessary orders by conducting detailed enquiry with regard to the illegal encroachment of the lands in^Sy.157 and^its sub^{divisions, situatedat} Madhavaraingudem village, Huzurnagar Mandal,^{Nalgonda District in the interest} of^{justice pending} disposal of the above^{writ petition}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. S SURENDER^REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.2442O of 2015

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for^the

¶29

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents^{and perused} the entire material on record.

¶30

Learned counsel^{appearing for the petitioners} submits that the petitioners belongs^{to Scheduled Case} Community and landless^{poor persons. Their fathers} and fore-fathers have served the^{then NizamNawabs} as servants. In view of their service,^{they weregiven} Inam i.e., Balwata Inam in^{Sy.No. 157, situatedat} Madhavarianigudem Hlo Huzurnagar^Viallgeand Mandal, Suryapet District^{(erstwhile Nalgonda District)} and the Nizam Nawabs gave total^{land to an extent of} Ac.2-2O guntas to 24 SC lamilies of^{their village} including the petitioners' families.^{The father of the} petitioners granted Inam le.rd to an extent of^Ac.O-04

¶31

¶32

SK,J W.P.No 24420 of 2O15

¶33

guntas 1n Sy.No.I57 l17 and Ac.0-04 guntas 1n Sy.No.l57 l08. Despite of that, third parties are trying to encroach the lands of the petitioners and others to an extent of Ac.2-2O guntas. In spite of representation dated 2i'.O7.2OLS made by the petitioners, the respondent-authorities have not taken any action against the encroachment of the lands. In view of the same, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the instant writ petition and requested to direct the respondents to consider their representation and pass appropriate orders. 3. On th.e other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter tiled by the respondent No.4 submits that as per the revenue records, the land in Sy.No.l57 of Madhavarianigudem H/o Huzurnagar Viallge and Mandal, Suryapr:t District (erstwhile Nalgonda District) is not encro:rched by anyone as alleged by the petitioners. The said land was earlier assigned to Smt. Nagavelli Kruparnma ulde

¶34

¶35

SI(,J W.P.No.24420 of 2015

¶36

proceedings No.B/ 14671L992 issued by the respondent No.3-Revenue Division Officer, Miryalaguda and issued Occupancy Patta Certilicate (OPC) for an extent of Ac.2-2O guntas in Sy.No.157 and an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.159, totaJly to an extent of Ac.3-OO guntas and also the benehciary by name Smt. Nagavelli Krupamma name is reflected in the revenue records. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the said Smt. Nagavelli Krupamma are successors of the properff and they are in the possession and enjoyment of the same and are raising paddy crop. The petitioners have not impleaded the persons who are in possession of the property and there is no assignment of favour of the petitioners and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶37

After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this court is ol the considered view that the petitioners have lailed to lile any record shows that the property was assigned to the 24 SC families in

¶38

¶39

SKJ W.P.No.2442O of 2015

¶40

Sy.No. 151' situated at Madhavarianigudem Hlo Huzurnag;ar Village and Mandal, Suryap<:t District (erstwhile Nalgonda District). Only one pahani was Iiled which shows the name of the father of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.0-O4 guntas, but the petitioners now questioning the action of the respondents in not taking steps on l.he iltegal encroachments in Sy.No. 157 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-2O guntas. As per the counter of the respondents, the authorities have assigned land to the eligible landless persons and there is no encroachment in Sy.No. 157 of Madhavarianigudem H/o Huzurnagar Village ancl Mandal.

¶41

The petitioners without any valid documents have filed the instant writ petition. If the petitioners have any right over the property, they can approach the authorities along with valid documents for redressa-l o[ their grievance. The petitioners are stating that the 24 SC families of their Village in Sy.No. 157 were granted

¶42

¶43

SK,J W.P.No.2442O of 2O15

¶44

¶45

¶46

Inam, but failed to file any documents to show their possession over the schedule property from the date of Inam and there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

In view of the above findings, this Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶49

pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶50

SD/. L. LAKSHMI ABU ASSISTANT^REG TRAR

//TRUE^COPY'

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

One CC to^{SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUC]}

¶55

TwoCCs to^{GP FOR REVENUE'High Court for the State of Telangana} tOUI

¶56

Two CD^CoPies KKS GJP (*'

¶57

HIGH COURT

¶58

DATED:19111,"12024

¶59

o* 1H E S r,. , a
(
(
t2
I 3 tiii 2 02l cr
.i,
OgSP,,1ll:t'' ./,

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.24420 of 2015

¶62

DISMISSING^'I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /7t\ P^A- (tl tU_ ). lz-s

Nandigam Bikshamaiah, S/o. Late N. Venkaiah, v. The State of Telangana, Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nandigam Bikshamaiah, S/o. Late N. Venkaiah, v. The State of Telangana, Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Enugu Sarojana, Vs The Tahsildar, Pochampally Mandal

Nomumla Mohan Reddy (Died as per LRs Petitioners 4 to 6) Vs The Tahsildar

Jumbarthi Rajam Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Gandani Srinivas, Vs The District Collector

V.Sarojini, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

K. Mohan Reddy Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District