Partly allowed

Poleboina Eswaramma, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024WP/35636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land interference by revenue authorities. It directed the Tahsildar to conduct a survey after issuing notice to resolve a boundary dispute before determining possession rights.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) to conduct a survey of Sy.No.289/a and Sy.No.138 after issuing notice to the petitioner.

Poleboina Eswaramma, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35636 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Poleboina Eswaramma, W/o Eswaraiah,^{Aged 56 years, Occ} ;^{Cultivation, R/o H.No.} 2-132l2BA,Sundaraiah Nagar, Manuguru,^{Bhuadradri KothagudemDistrict.}

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary^{(Revenue), Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem^{District, Kothagudem.}

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam^{Division, Bhadradri} Kothagudem District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrict.}

¶15

....,RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{flled therewith, the High Court may be} pteased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of^{Mandamus duly} declaring the action of the 4th respondent^{in interferingwith the peaceful} possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land vide an extent^{of Acers 1.34} Kuntas in Survey Number 289/a, at^{[Manuguru Village and Mandal'} Bhadrachalam Division, Bhadradri Kothagudem^{District,without any notice or} proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and against the^principles of natural^justiceand against the rights conferred under Article³⁰⁰⁽⁴⁾ of^{Constitution of lndia, and} consequently, direct the respondents^{not to interfere with the petitioners} possession and enjoyment of the above land in the interest^{of justice'}

¶17

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the^{petitioner's possession} and enjoyment of the land vide an extent of Acers 1.34 Kuntas in Survey Number 2891a, al l,4anuguru Village and Mandal, Bhadrachalam Division, Bhadradri Kothagudem Distri,:t in the interest of^justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.35636 of 2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

It is stated that the petitioner is the^{pattadar and possessor} of the agricuiture land admeasuring^{Ac.1.34guntasin} Sy.No.289/a situated at Manuguru^{Village and Mandal, Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District. It is^{furtherstated that the petitioneris a} scheduled tribe ald she is in enjoSrment^{of the subject property} since more than three decades and the^{revenueauthorities also} issued pattadar passbook bearing^{No.T2717OO7O289uide Khata} No.848 in favour of the^petitioner under the^{provisionsof the} Telangana zughts in Land and Pattadar^{Passbooks Act, 202O (for} short 'the ROR Act, 2O2O"t. The^{grievance of the petitioneris that} the respondent authorities without taling^{into consideration of the} said facts have erected a board in her^{land disputing that the land} which is in her occupation is forming^{part of Sy.No.138-}

¶26

Considered the submissions of Sri^{P.RamaSharana Sharma,} leamed counsel for the^petitioner and Sri^{L.Ravinder,learned} Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue^{appearing for the} respondents and with their consent this^{writ petition is disposed of} at the admission stage.

¶27

In view of the submissions^{made by the learned counsel for} the parties, prima facie it appears that there is^{a dispute with}

¶28

¶29

CVBR, J Wp ]5636 2024

¶30

regard to the identihcation, localisation ald boundaries of Sy.No.289/a for which the petitioner has been granted pattadar pass book and Sy.No. 138, the land claimed by the government. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice *o.id t. met if respondent No.4-Tahsildar is directed to conduct survey of the land situated in Sy.No.289 /a and Sy.No. 138 of Manuguru Village after issuing notice to the petitioner and if the land claimed by the petitioner is forming part of Sy.No.138, the respondent authorities are entitled to take possession of the same in accordance with law. Further, if the land is forming part of Sy.No.289/a, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land, in any manner.

¶31

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶33

shall stald closed.

¶34

SD/.N.^SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l-.- -

¶35

SECT6ft^OFFICER

¶36

To 1. The Principal^{Secretary,(Revenue)'Secretariat' State of Telanganaat}

¶37

2.J, ?X!"Jili!i The Revenue^{c o,ecto Divisional r, Bhad u#i;;;" radri Kothaeude,m bn'ori"h"t" District, Kothasudem.Division' Bhadradri} Kothaqudem^Drstrict'

¶38

4 The Tehsilda-,^{Manuguru Mandal' Bhadradri KothagudemDistrict'} rwo ccs to^{GP FoR nrvEiiuE' nisitto''tror. th; state of relansanaat} Hvderabad. [oUT]

¶39

6 lil'l,"#IJ^{dnr p hnH'rnsHARANA sHARMA'Advocate toPUCl} 7 Two CD CoPies

SA CJP w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 911212024

ORDER

WP.No.35636 of 2024

fip16,='
l.tt s14
{
t
.)
( 10 tlqr zczs "6
i

¶46

DISPOSING CF THE W.P

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶48

\o^."dd **

Poleboina Eswaramma, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poleboina Eswaramma, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bagari Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Rekala Ramdas Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Kasoju Uday Vs The State of Telangana

Chintapally Lakshmikanta Vs The State of Telangana

Moghal Holdings Vs The State of Telangana

Parvathi Mallamma Vs The State of Telangana