Disposed

Kandi Swetha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/28251/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the respondents' attempt to dispossess her of private patta land without following due legal processes. The court directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and required them to follow the Land Acquisition Act procedures if they wish to acquire the property.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to interfere with petitioner's possession of the subject property without following due process of law; acquisition must follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparenc

Kandi Swetha, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28251 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kandi Swetha, D/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Occ ; Student, R|/o. 3- 1 15/3, Pinapaka Mandal, Edula Bayaram, Botigudem, Bayyaram, Khammam District.

¶9

.....pEirroruen

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Prl. Secretary Department of Revenue, .

¶12

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

. ..

¶14

The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palvancha Revenue Division, Palvancha, Khammam District.

¶16

The Tahasildar, Pinapaka N4andal. Pinapaka, Khammam District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ. order or direction more particularly one ifl the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring approximately Ac. 1.00 Gts., in Sy.No. 47l24l1 , situated at Settharampuram Village, Pinapaka -Mandal. Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the land of the petitioner.

¶19

¶20

I iI I i i

¶21

LA.NO:1 OF 20t15 ffiPMP.NO:36632 OF 2015)

¶22

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 interfere with the land of the^petitioner admeasuring approximately Ac. 1.00 Gts., in Sy.No. 4712411, situated at Settharampuram Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶27

trrRIT PETITION No.28251 oF 2015

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliel

¶30

"...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the action of the respondent No.4 in trying to dispossess tle petitioner from^{tle land admeasuringapproimatelyAc. 1.OO Guntas in'} Sg.No.47/ 24/ 1, situated at Settharampuram Village, Pinopaka Mondol, KLnmmam Districf as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and consequentlg direct the respondents not to interfere utith the land of the petitioner and pass..."

¶31

Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri

¶32

M.Sahas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring to arr extent of Ac. 1-00 guntas tn Sy.No.47 /27 /1, situated at Settharampuram Village, Pinapaka Manda-l, Khammam District. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

¶34

¶35

SK,J W.P.No.28251 of 2015

¶36

respondent No.6 has acquired some part of the patta land ol the petitioner for the purpose of construction of Bhadradri Power Plant. After acquiring the said land, the petitioner is in possession of the remaining land to arr extent of Ac. 1-OO gurltas and the name of the petitioner is also recorded as enjoyer in the revenue records. Without following any procedure and without initiating the land acquisition proceedings, the respondents are trying to interfcre with the possession of the petitioner and requested to allow the ',vrit petition.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter submits that as per the revcnuc records i.e., Sethwar and Chesala Pahani, thc Sy.No.47 r,"as recorded as Government land (Sarkari), but, the petitioner stated that the said survey number is a patta land. The petitioner 1S trying to grab the Government propertl, by creating fraudulent documents and on basis of some fraudulent entries in occupant column in pahani lor the vear

¶38

¶39

SK,J W.P.No.28251 of 2O15

¶40

I E ! I f i I I I i i :

¶41

2Ol3-14 and the suit schedule land is a Government land. In fact, the petitioner is not in possession of the above land at any point of time and the said land is vacant ard it is in the custody of the Government and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶42

After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the main contention of the respondents is that the land in Sy.No.47 belongs to the Government and the petitioner at no point ol time, becqme the owner of the property and merely basing on the wrong entries in the revenue records, the petitioner is trying to grab the land of the Government. But, Page No.41 olthe material paper of the counter Iiled by the respondents shows that as per Chesal Pahani, the land in Sy.No.47 admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 157.36 guntas is a Poramboku land and the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.43.13 guntas is a Patta land. As per Adangal/Pahani for t1 e year 1994-95 in Page No.S1 of the material paper in the counter shows that in Sy.No.47 /24,

¶43

¶44

I : ! it

¶45

sl(,J W.P.No.28251 of 2O15

¶46

the name of the pattedar shows as Smt. Mekala Buchamma and as per Adangal/Pahani for the year 2Ol3-14, Sy.No.a7/2a/1 is a patta land and Smt. Mekala Buchamma as pattadar and the name of the petitioner is shown in the enjoyer column. Also as per Adangal/Pahani for the year 2OI4-I5, it clearly shows that the subject land is a patta land and the name of the petitioner is shown as the enjoyer. It clearly shov./s that as per the revenue records, the suit schedule property does not belong to ttre Government ald the name of the petitioner is shown in the enjoyer column. Thc respondents, in contrar5r to the revenue records, stating that the suit schedule property belongs to the Government and the petitioner in no point of time became the possessor of the subject property.

¶47

The contention of the respondents is contrary to the revenue records and the sarne cannot be accepted. As per the revenue records, the suit schedule propefiy is a private patta land and the respondents cannot interfere with the

¶48

¶49

¶50

SI(,J W.P.No.28251 of 20l5

¶51

possession of the petitioner in the suit schedule property without following due process of law, if the respondents want to acquire the land, they have to follow the procedure as contemplated under Land Acquisition Act.

¶52

In view of the above findings, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the subject property, without following due process of law. If the respondents want to acquire the land of the petitioner, they have to follow the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and issue notice to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pending shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶56

¶57

S TION OFFICER

¶58

1 Ilp^ll,ryiprl Secretary, Depa(ment of Revenue. Secretanat, State of I etangana at Hyderabad.

¶59

2 The District Coliector, Khammam District. Khammam J. Ihe Revenue Divisional Officer, palvancha Revenue Dlvrsron. palvancha, Khammam District.

¶60

'.G,t*.t'

¶61

The Tahasildar, pinapaka Mandal, pinapaka, Khammam Drstrict

¶62

¶63

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶64

One CC to SRI P.VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

Two CD Copies

SA GJP

$,L

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212024

ORDER

WP.No.28251 of 2015

1 , ri S r4 14:
(
d 11 iliAtr zn25
DEs t!.^. r

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶75

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶76

o(n-

Kandi Swetha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandi Swetha, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Rama Vs The Tahsildar and Deputy Collector

A. Mallikarjuna Goud (Died) Vs The State of A.P. Rep by the Joint Collector

P.Saraswathi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal

Gannarapu Surender, Vs State of Telangana

Smt.K.Swaroopa Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District

K. Murali Mohan Vs The State of A.P.