Disposed

Mr. Chippakurthy Narayana v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/3288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus restraining revenue authorities from interfering with the petitioners' possession of land. The Court refrained from adjudicating ownership but directed that any eviction must follow due legal process.

What did the court decide?

Directed that Respondents 3 and 4 shall dispossess petitioners from the land only after following due process of law if they are found not to be owners.

Mr. Chippakurthy Narayana Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH ^/ONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PET ITION N O: 3288 oF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. Chippakurthv Narayala., S/o Rayaposham. Aged 50 years, Occ. Agricutrure. H No tt-,,rai, iriiiar<na'ga, b,rliliir.r,,,rge, Mancheriat disr

¶9

tvtr. Chippakurthv Ma,esh, S/" R;;";;;;,'ituo so years, Occ Aoricutturc H No 22- 144, f h,taknasa, G;ilii;'Viir;;,'fiXn*relar oist

¶10

...PETITIONERS 1 e, Secretariat 311[:fj.,:li:?Sifu*"0^{ov it. p'fl]|"r Secretary,Hom} 2 The Station House Ofticer. p. S., Mancherial District. 3 4 The rhe raha sitdar, Revcn ue Divisiona Mancher I Oiricer, ia t M, "ll;i, nOb, M;;;il#ibi!ir"t.fr/"n"-f.l"?irT'""'". Petition under Articte 226 of the Constiturion of tndia o;f::",?],r:T: crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of writ of ma ndamus to the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere the land in property at Sy. No. 334 at Garmilla Shivar of mancherial dist to an extent of ac 2.30 gts wrthout fo llowing due process of law/ procedure established by law, interference by resp ondents with the subject land is illegal, arbitrary and violation of An 21 ,300 A of constitution of lndia there by direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners land

¶11

lA NO: 1 oF 2024

¶12

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to issue a direction to the respondents 2 & 3 not to interfere with the petitioners rand at sy_ No 334 at Garmira shivar of mancherair dist to an extent of ac 2. 30 gts pending disposal of the WRIT petition.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners: SRI pOCHAIAH DORISHETTI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Gp fOn iOfUe uounsel tor the ResDondent Nos.3 & 4: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.3288 of 2024

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

¶18

'l-he petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of land aclmeasuring Ac.2.30 guntas situated in Survey No.334 of Gzrrmilla Shivar of Mancherial District, having inherited the samc li o n'r their gr-andfather, whose name was recorded as pattadar ll-om the year 1977 78 to 2OI2 2013. It is stated that after clernist' of their granclfatl-rer, the names of the petitioners were rnutated in t[-rc revenue records vide proceedings No. ROlt/ 6A/G armtllzt/ 1046/ 2013 dated, 17.O8.2O13. It is also stated thirt :rt the rerluest of the petitioners, survey has been conductccl arnd boundaries have been fixed by the revenue authoritics in respect of the subject land.

¶19

'lhc grievance o[ tl-rc petitioners in this writ petition is that at thc instance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.2 is frequently summoning to the petitioners to police station and intcrf'crir-rg with their civil rights over the extent of land which is in their possession.

¶20

Heard learned counsel lbr the parties and pemsed the record.

¶21

This Court, without exllresslltg anv opinion on tltc r ights of the pelitioncrs over the subject land in the wr-il pclttion, deems it appropriate to dispose of the rvr-il lrctition lt-v directing that in case it is found tl-rat the petit ior-rers :rrc in posscssion of any excess land and thcy are not olvncrs of the. s:ricl land, respondent Nos.3 ar-rd 4 shall r.[isposscss tltc pctil ione rs tiom the said land only after followir-rg due 1;r occss of larv.

¶22

The wrrt petition is ac<:oldingly clislroscrl of.

¶23

Pending miscellaneorrs applicatiorrs. if any, slr;rll stand

¶24

closed. There shall be no orrlcr:rs 1o (osts.

¶25

SDi. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION 6i''"'*

1 The Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat^{Building, Hyderabad, Stateof} Telangana.

¶30

2 The Siation House Officer, P. S.,^{[Vancherial District} The Tahasildar, Mancherial Mandal,^{[Vlancherial District.}

¶31

4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDC,^l/ancherial

¶32

5 One CC to SRI POCHAIAH DORISHETTI,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶33

6 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Cou(^{for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶34

7 Triro CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High^{Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶35

8 Two CD Copies

¶36

PSK.

¶37

GJP ctl?

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810312024

ORDER

WP.No.3288 of 2024

1nE Sr4 ,6.
I
o
C)
22 nps ztzq
6(,aL
* .l-
.i.
EsPATC H(,9

¶44

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

@.r^q--\rY

Mr. Chippakurthy Narayana v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Chippakurthy Narayana v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandhari Anitha Vs The State of Telangana

Poosa Eleshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Amgoth Saroja Vs The State of Telangana

Guguloth Veeranna Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Smt. Tasneem Faiyaz Bhagat Vs The State of Telangana