Allowed

Gitte Namdev s/o Baba Rao, v. The District Collector, Adilabad District

Telangana HC9 Dec 2024WP/3464/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order directing land custody proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. issued without notice to the petitioner. The High Court held the order violated natural justice and set it aside, remanding for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30-01-2013 set aside; matter remanded to Respondent No.1 for reconsideration and issuance of notice to the petitioner.

Gitte Namdev s/o Baba Rao, Vs The District… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² I

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3464 OF 20't3

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gitte Namdev, S/o Baba Rao, aged about 64 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Gudihatnoor A,4andal, and District Adilabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Adilabad District.

¶12

2 The Tahsildar, Gudihatnoor Mandal, Adilabad District

¶13

3 The District Forest Officer, Adiiabad, Adilabad District.

¶14

4 The Forest Range Officer, Echoda, lt4andal lchoda, District Adilabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitulion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order, or orders, direction or directions, or issue a writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of lVandamus and declare that the impugned proceedings passed by the respondent no.1 herein vide Proc.No.E5t66O3l2O12, dated 30-1-2013 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia, against the procedure laid down under*section 145 of Cr.P.C. and set aside the same.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2O13(WPMP. NO: 4300 OF 2013 )

¶18

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 stay the eviction of petitioner agricultural land. to the total extent of 7 acres 02 guntas land in Sy.No. 98/1 and 7 acres 07 guntas land in Sy.No.9B/2 of village &

¶19

,.-,ri:.

¶20

Mandal Gudihatnoor, District Adilabad,^{by suspendingthe op":rationof the} impugned order^passed by^{therespondent no l} herein vide Proc. No. E5166 0312012, dated^{30-1-2013, pendingdisposal of main writ petition,} for the interest of^justice.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013^{(VWMP.NO: 2903 OF 2013)}

¶22

Between:

¶23

'1 . The District Forest Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶24

The Forest Range Officer,^{Echoda, Mandal lchoda, District Adilabad'}

¶25

...PETITIONERS

¶26

AND

¶27

Gitte Namdev, Sio Baba Rao,^{aged about64 years; Occ rrigriculture,Rl/o} Gudihatnoor 'landal, and Drstrict^Adilabad.

¶28

2 The District C;ollector, Adilabad^District.

¶29

The Tahsilda'. Gudihatnoor^{l,4andal, AdilabadDistrict}

¶30

(Respondent No.2 & 3 are not necessary^parties)

¶31

...R ESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition undr:r Sectton 151 CPC^{prayingthat in th 3 circun stancesstated} in the affidavit filec tn support of the^{petition,the HighCourtmay be pleasedto} vacate the interim crders dt: 06.02.20'l^{3, passedin W.P. l,4.P. Nc. 4300 of 2013} in W.P. No. 3464 of 2013.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶34

Counsel for the Re'spondent No.1 &^{2: AGP FORREVENUE}

¶35

Counsel for the R€,spondent^{No.3 & 4: AGP FOR FORESTS}

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

i i l

¶38

)

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶40

WRIT PETITION No.3464 of 2O13

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest and learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents ald perused the entire material on record.

¶43

After hearing both sides this Court is of the considered vlew that, the petitioner 1S challenging the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No. I uide proceedings No.trS/6603/2072, dated 30.O1.2013 directing the respondent No.2 to take the disputed land into Government custody under cover of palchalama and also directed to issue proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. by staying the proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.B/ 1 I9O / 2012, dated 07. 12.2072

¶44

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is the pattadar of the lands in Sy.Nos.9B/1 and 9812 of Gudihathnoor Village and there is a dispute between the petitioner and Forest Department. In earlier round of litigation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing

¶45

¶46

¶47

W.P.No.24925 of 2010 and this Court disposed of.the writ petition on 05.10.2010 directing the responclents therein not to evict the petitioner from the lald in question u.rless and until the re spondents considered the explanation s;ubmitted by the petit_ioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.zl claimed that the sulrject land belongs to the Forest Departrnent and the respondent No.2 after hearing both sides ald ta king into account of tlee document filed by the petitioner and ttre Forest Department held that the claim made by the responclent No.4 is not genuine and observes no consideration at all and the suit schedule land pertains to the petitioner by pass;ng order vide dated O17.12.2072 in proc.No.B /tIgO/20 j2.

¶48

Aggrieved by the said orders, the responde.nt No.3 addressed a letter to the respondent No.1 on l l .12.2O12 and. Ex. Sarpanch of the said village made representatio::r to the respondent l\o. 1 . Basing on the said letter made by the respondent llo.3 and representation of the Ex. Sarpa:,rch, the respondent ,\o. 1 , without giving arry opportunitr_ to the petitioner, passed impugned orders vide proceeding No.E5/66O3 /2012, dated 30.01.2O13, stating that rhere is likelihood of breach of peace and directed the respondent

i1€@*:**xx.

I I

No.2 to initiate proceedings, under Section 145 Cr.p.C. till further orders and the respondent No.2 is directed to take disputed land under cover of palchamama.

¶53

Merely basing on the letter addressed by the respondent No.3 and the complaint made by one pawar Ravindra Naik, Ex.Sarpanch, Gudihatnoor, the respondent No.1 passed impugned orders without issuing notice to the petitioner and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned orders dated 30.01.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside.

¶54

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of, by setting aside the impugned orders vide Proc.No.E5/6603/2Ot2, dated 30.01.2013 passed by the respondent No.I and remand the matter to the respondent No.1 for re-consideration of entire material ald the respondent No.1 is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and documents for supporting his claims. After hearing the petitioner and the respondent No.3, the respondent No.l shall pass appropriate orders as per law. There shall be no ordei as to costs.

¶55

¶56

Pending miscellaneous applications, if anl in this

¶57

petition, shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/.N. SRIHARI ASS REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ON OFFICER

To,

The District^(lollector, Adilabad District.

¶63

The Tahsildar Gudihatnoor lv1andal, Adilabad Diskict.

¶64

2 The District Forest Officer, Adilabad , Adilabad District

¶65

The Forest F{ange Officer, Echoda, I,4andal lchoda, Adilabad t)ist.

¶66

4 One CC to SRI S.CHANDRASEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

t). Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [,CUT]

¶68

7 Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [,]UTl

¶69

B Two CD Cop ies

¶70

BSR GJP

L' .13 ;;f..

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0911212024

ORDER

WP.No.3464 of 2013

.4 1l{ E l)TA16
J*
t
+
J
(,) 2 2 t/r\H 2025
)a
r+
*
Dt'S p rr Ct{

¶78

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶79

WITHOUT COSTS

¶80

<br>I

Gitte Namdev s/o Baba Rao, v. The District Collector, Adilabad District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gitte Namdev s/o Baba Rao, v. The District Collector, Adilabad District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhukya Shankar Vs Smt. a. Vani Prasad, IAS

Ameena Begum and Another Vs the State of a.P., Repby Prl. Secy to Rev. Dept and 8 Otehrs

Pathan Baji Khan, Pallu Saheb Vs Smt Pranitha Tamne

Nimmanagooti Saidulu Vs The State of A.P.

Aleti Jagga Reddy and 3 Others Vs the Joint Collector,Karimnagar and 5 Others

M/S Sri Venkateshwara Coop Farming Scty,Hyd,and 11 Otrs Vs Jnt Collector,Hyd,and 5 Otrs