Disposed

Boda Lingaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024WP/35451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Agriculturists challenged encroachment notices under Section 7 and a subsequent Section 6 order under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 as violating natural justice. The court disposed of the writ petition at admission stage, directing them to appeal within four weeks; coercive action stayed pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners may file appeal under Section 10 within four weeks; no coercive action till appeal is decided; no costs.

Boda Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 I

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35451 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Boda Lingaiah, S/o. Mallaiah Aged about 35^years, Occ. Agriculture

¶9

Gone Veeraswami, S/o.Bikshamaiah Aged about 45^years, Occ. Agriculture

¶10

Kaila Uppalaiah, S/o Ramaiah Aged about 50^years, Occ. Agriculture

¶11

Gone Mallaiah, S/o Lakshamiah Aged about 55^years, Occ. Agriculture

¶12

Gone Biksham, S/o Saklulu Aged about 40^years, Occ. Agriculture

¶13

Gone Ramu, S/o Mallaiah Aged about 45^years, Occ. Agriculture All are Ri/o. China Bandi revenue Village, Badrachalam Mandal,^Badradri Kothagudem District.

¶14

...PETITtONER

¶15

AND

¶16

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^(Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

The District Collector, Badradri Kothagudem District

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Badrachalam Mandal, Badradri^Kothagudem District.

¶19

The Tahsildhar, Dummagudem Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court rnaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directircn more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of writ of Mandamus Declaring the action^{of the respondentNos.2to 4} more particularly Respondent No.4 in issuing notices to the^{petitionersvkle} Rc.No. 8/543/2004, dated 30-11-2024 which was served on^{petitioners on 10-12'} 2024 undet Section 7 of Madras Act No.3 of 1905, in respect^{of petitioner'sland} and thereby interfering with the^{peacefulpossession and enjoymentof the} petitioners subiect lands i.e., i.e., Petit'roner No.1 is in^possession of land admeasuring AL.05.30 Cents, in Sy.No.55/2, Petitioner^{No.2 is in possessionof} land adrneasuring Ac.O4.00 Cents,ⁱⁿ Sy.No.52l1,^{Petitioner No.3 is in possession}

¶22

of land admeasuring Ac.02.00 Cents, in Sy.No.S.l/4, petitioner No.4 is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.01 .60 cents, in sy.No.51/3, petitioner No.s is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.O1.60 cents, in sy.No.s113, petitioner No 6.is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.01.26 cents, in sy.No.s3l1, and land admeasuring Ac.01 .20 cents, in sy.No.53/2, totaling to land admeasuring Ac.02.46 Cents, situated at Pedanallaballi Village, Dummugudem Mandai Badradri Kothagudem District as highly illegal, arbitrary, against the verdict of the Honrable Apex court reported in AIR 1982 sc logi and violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of constituiion of lndia and to consequentially set aside the notices issued by the Respondent No.4 vide Rc.No. 8/543/2004, dated 3o111t2024 to the petitioners which was served on petitioners on 1011212024 under section 7 of Madras Act No.3 of 1905, including direction to the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petitioners subject lands i.e., i.e., petitioner No.1 is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.os.30 cents, in sy.No.s5/2, petitioner No.2 is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.04.00 cents, in Sy.No.5211 , petitioner No.3 is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.02.00 cents, in sy.No.S1/4, petitioner No.4 is in possession of rand admeasuring Ac.0i.60 cents, in 5y.No.51/3, Petitioner No.5 is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.01.60 bents, in Sy. No.51/3, Petitioner No.6 is in possession of land admea-suring Ac.01.26 cents, in Sy.No.53/1 , and rand admeasuring Ac.01.20 cents, in sy.N6.53/2, totaring to fand^{admeasuring Ac.02.46 cents,situated atpedanailabairi} Viilage, Dummugudem Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District.

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

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 p[eaied to suspend the notices issued by the Respondent No.4 vide Rc.No. g)sqztzoo+, dated 30-1 1-2024 to the petitioners which was served on petitioners on 10-,122024 under section 7 of Madras Act No.3 of 190s, including direction to the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enloyment over the petitioners subject lands i.e., i.e., petitioner No.1 is in poislssion of land admeasuring Ac.05.30 cents, in Sy.No.55/2, peiitioner No.2 is in possession of la-nd admeasuring Ac.04.00 cents, in Sy.No.s2l1 , petitioner No.3 is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.02.00 cents, in Sy.No.s114, petitioner iro.a is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.01.60 cents, in sy.No.s113, petitioner No.5 is in possession of rand admeasuring Ac.01.60 centi, in Sy.No.51/3, petitioner No.,6 is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.O1.26 Cents, in Sy.No.53/1 , and land admeasuring Ac.0'r .20 cents, in sy.No.s3/2, totaling to land admeasuring Ac.02.46 cents, situated at pedana[abaili Viflage, Dimmugudem Manoat, Badradri Kothagudem District pending disposar of the above writ ietition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY

¶26

counsel forthe Respondents: sRr L. RAVTNDER, Assr. Gp FoR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.35451 of 2024

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶32

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶33

'..-.to is-tue an oppropriula wril ordcr or clir<'clion ntore partictlarl.l' s111' in tlt<' ntrlurt o/'u'rit ol l4rmdunu.s Declaring thc, action of tlu, rtspond<,nt Nos.2 lo 4 moru parlicularly llcspontlcnt No 4 in i.ssning ttotic?.\ to rh( pctitioncrs tilc llc'. No.l]/54 3/2004, datcd -10. ll_2024 rhich vus strycd ot paitioners on l0.l).2024 undar S<,ctitn 7 of' Malras Act No 3 ol 1905 in rcspcct o/ pctilione,rs land and thcreb.1, iulcr/iring with thc peacc.fttl pssession and cnjovntcnt o/ th( patitiones sullcu lunds i.c., l)etilioner Ntt 1 is irt ltosstssion ol ltrntl ulnx'etsurinz /t:.05.30 Ccnts, in Sv.No.55/), Pctilionu'No 2 is in posscssion ol lurul udnr.,trstt int! Ac.04.()0 Ccnts, irr Sv.No.52/l, [ktilioncr No..i i.s irt ltosses.siorr^{ol lund udmcasuring 1c.02 00 Cents in S.y.No.5l/4 l)ditioncr} No.4 is in posscsskn of hnd admcusuring ,,lc.0l .60 CL,nts, in Sv.No5l/3, Petitioner No.S is in posscssion oJ lantl udncnsu'inu: Ac.0I .6t)^(.cnts, in Sy.No.5 l/3, P<'titionar No.6 is in po.sst,.s.sitttr of lnntl adntuturitra Ac-01 .26 Cutts, in Sy.No.53/ I ttnrl lonl rulnunxrittg tk.0l.l0^('<,nls, in Sy.No.53/1, totaling to lund utlncasuritr.g .4t:.02.46 ('c ts -tituotd ql Pcdanallobllli l.'illugc Dunurutgudcm lvlondul Buclradri Kothagudcn District as highly ;llag7,1 arbitral, against thc vardict ol thc onrable Apex Court rcported h AIR 1982 SC l08l and violative o/ principles of notural justice qnd in viokttion ol Articlcs 14, 2l aud -100-A of Constitution o./ lrulio and to conscquentiolly sct nsidc rhc mtliccs i.ssuctl b.t,the llcspondent No.4^yide llc. No. 8/513/)001, clated 30.11.2024 to lhe pelilioncrs u,hich :r.os s<tryad on yx,tititttcrs on 10.12-20:4 tntlcr Sectiort 7 ol Madras tlct No.i ol 1905, intluling dircclion to lhe rasporder s nol to inlar.fcrc^y'ith pcoccfi possessiort and utjo.vnx,nt oter thc pctition?rs sullect lands i.c., patitioncr No.l is irt 1r<tsst,ssion of land atlnrcasuring Ac.05.30^(-cnts, irt 5.t,.No.55/2. l'atitkncr No.2 is itr posscssiott ol lund udnrcusuring .4<'.04.00^('cnts in S.v-No.51/1, Pctilioncr No.3 is in possession of ktnl atlnutrsuring At'.02.00 Cants, irt S.v.No.5l/4, Pctirktne r No.4 is in possassion ol' hnd adn<rtsuring Ac.()1.6() Cents in Sv No.5l/3, Pcritioncr No.5 is itt ltosscssion d^{lnntl otlm<'ostu-ing} /c.01.60 Ccnts, in S.t.No.5l/3, l'L'tilion<'r No.6 is irr lxtsscssion of lorul adnrcuxting Ac.01.26 (lcnts, in

t I

5.t,.No.53/l ond lond adnrcasut.irtg Ac.|1.20 Ccnts, in Sv.No.53/2. totaling to land adrucasuritq Ac.02.46 Cents..situated at pcdanolfubalti l'illag<, l)unntugulcm A4an<lal Badradri Kothagutlent District atrl lo pttss such other order or orders...."

¶38

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that without granting sufflcient time to submit an explanation arrd without taking into consideration of the long possession of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have passed the impugned order.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent is non-application of mind and in violation of the principles of the natural justice, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the date of fiting of the writ petition the respondents have not passed an order under Section Z of Telangana Land Encroachment Act, l9O5 (for short "the Act"), but however, today, he came to know that the respondents

I t

have passed an order under Section 6 of the Act ulde proceedings in Rc.No.B/54312OO4, dated 16.12.2024. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents, without providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to submit the explanation to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, have^passed the order under Section 6 of the Act.

¶45

Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that against the orders passed under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioners are having a remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶46

In view of the above submissions and since the petitioners are having an alternative' eflicacious remedy of appeal under Section 1O of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 19O5, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioners to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of four⁽⁰⁴⁾ weeks from today and allowing to raise all the^grounds available to the petitioners including the^{ground for not giving}

¶47

¶48

<br>

¶49

an opportunity of submitting explanation to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act. It is made clear that when the said issues have been raised before the appellate authority, the appellate authority is directed to take into consideration of the explanation and pass a reasoned order duly taking into consideration of the grounds urged before the appellate authority and communicate the order to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of liling of such appeal. Till the disposal of the appeat, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive action pursuant to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act and the order passed under section 6 ofthe Act.

¶50

7 With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed

¶51

of. No order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶53

any, shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal secretary (Revenue) The state of rerangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Badradri Kothagudem District 3. The Revenue Divisionar officer, Badricnatam Mirilal, Badradri Kothagudem District. 4. Th e T_a h s i ldh a r, D u m maqu-g em N!q1{a! _B_ad rad ri Kothag udem D istrict. g. gne cc to SRt KAIKAItAVtNgqB RE-DDY, Advo&telopudt^{-- --} 6. Two CCs to Gp FoR REVENUe, High Court'f;tt" Stite ifle,iangana. touTl 7. Two CD Copies BN s BS

t, ,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711212024

ORDER

WP.No.35451 of²⁰²⁴

i fiF- .c
f,
o
2i,ini1 2pg
dz
t
&r]'cF<br>

¶65

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

Cdc"P"'! 'av$rn ,---

Boda Lingaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boda Lingaiah 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

Kethavath Sriveni Vs The State of Telangana

D.Venkateshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Kommu Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Gunti Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana

K.Shekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kumbalapally Linga Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana