Disposed

Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, (Died as per Lr P2) v. State of Ap,Dist Collector,Khammam,and 4

Telangana HC6 Dec 2024WP/3785/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus restraining respondents from interfering with their possession and cultivation of tank bed land in survey no. 405/C(A). Court disposed the writ petition directing respondents not to interfere with possession without due process of law, while permitting action if tank is damaged.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioners' possession of subject land without following due process of law; respondents may act per law if tank damaged.

Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, (Died as per Lr P2) Vs State… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I I I I I t i I I t I i t l

¶2

[³³⁰²¹

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3785 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, (Died as per LR p2), S/o. Gopaiah, Aged g5 yeqrg, O9c Cultivation, R/o Raghunadhhpatem Vi[tage, Khahmam Mandal and District.

¶10

2 Martlineni. Ravigopal,..S/o. _Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, Age 56 years, Rlo. Raghunadhapalem Village Mandal, Khammam District. Petitioner No.02 is brought on record as LR of the deceased petitioner No. l as perC.O.dt.03.07.2024 in lA No. 1/2021.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam City.

¶14

2 Bgyqnue^{Divisional Officer, Khammrn Division, Khammam City, Khammam} District.

¶15

3 Tahsildar, Khammam City, Khammam District.

¶16

4 Superintending Engineel lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Khammam City, Khammam District.

¶17

5 Divisional Elginggr, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Khammam City, Khammam Diskict.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of 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 in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in insisting the petitioner not to cultivate his land of Ac. 4.14 y2 gunlas covered by survey No. 405/C (A) of Raghunadhampal€m Village, Khammam Mandal and District, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and

¶20

consequently direct^{the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the} petitioners possession^{over said land.}

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP.^NO:4661O F 20141

¶22

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayin-gthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{not to interferewith the petitioner's possessionoverhis} land of Ac.^{4.14 % guntas in survey No' 405/C of RaghunadhapalemRevenue} VillageinKhammamMandalandDistrict,pendingdisposalofthemainwrit petition.

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SMT R.MADHAVILATHA}

¶24

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.lto 3: AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶25

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.4 & 5: GP FOR IRRIGAT|ON& CAD}

¶26

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.3785 OF 2014

¶28

i if I I I I I I I II i

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

¶33

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶34

'...to issue utrit, order, or direction more^{particularly in} th.e nature of Writ of Mandamus declaritry the action of the Respondents in insisting the peLitioner not to culLiuate his land of Ac.4-14 /z gantas couered by Surueg No.4O5/C(E) of Raglunadhampalem Village, Khammom MandaL and District, os illegal, inegular, irrational, without^junsdiction, uiolatiue of pinciples of natural^justice and offends Art[cles 14, 21 ond 30O-A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner's possession ouer said lond ond pass..."

¶35

2 Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue appearing for the respondents etnd perused thc entire material on record.

¶36

During pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died, as such, the petitioner No.2 being the^legal

¶37

¶38

st(,J W.P.No.3785 of 2014

¶39

represental.ive of the deceased petitioner has brought on record as petitioner No.2 in this writ petition.

¶40

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in vierv of the para No.S of the counter hled by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the respondents stated that they are not int,:rfering with the agricultural activitjes of the petitioner. If the petitioner damages the existence of the water solrrce, the respondents have right to take appropriatt: action in the suit schedule property under the provisions ol the A.p. Irrigation Act, 1951. The .:retitioner has got liniited right over the tank bed. land anrl he can enjoy the Jand, only by cultivation of wet or dry crops, without catrsing any damage to the water storage capacity of the tan[<, lvhich is in practice from the time of formation of the tank.

¶41

Learne,C Counsel appearing for the petitioner. further .^{submits that the petitioner} is cultivating the land u,henever

¶42

¶43

sr(J W.P.No.3785 of 2O14

¶44

there is no water in the tank and not damaged the tank bed.

¶45

In view of the aforementioned submission, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere tdth the possession of the petitioners in the subject propert5r, without following due process of law. If the petitioner damages or occupy the water tank, the respondents have right to take appropriate action as per

¶46

law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shail stand

¶48

clo sed.

¶49

SD/. L.LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

CTION OFFICER

¶52

To, '1 . The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam City' State of Telangana.

¶53

The hevenue Divisional Officer,^{Khammrn Division,KhammamCity,} Khammam District.

¶54

The Tahsildar, Khammam City,^{Khammam District.}

¶55

The Superintending Engineei, lrrigation -and.^{Command AreaDevelopment} Department, Khammam City, Khammam^Distri_ct.

¶56

Th; Divisional Engineer,^- lrrigation and^{Command Area Developrnent} Department, Khamm-am City, Khammam^District.

¶57

On'e CC to SMT R.MADHAVI LATHA,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶59

8 Trfuo CCs tb GP FOR IRRIGATION^{& CAD, High court for the stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶60

1. Two CD Copies

BSR PSK v

: I

HIGH COURT

DATED: OG11212024

ORDER

t\ E ef€
(
q
2I Jr\N 2025 fr
*
t
O S P'\TCd LU

¶68

WP.No.3785 of 2O14

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

I f

Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, (Died as per Lr P2) v. State of Ap,Dist Collector,Khammam,and 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, (Died as per Lr P2) v. State of Ap,Dist Collector,Khammam,and 4

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

R. Devender Reddy and Another Vs the District Collector, Rr Dist and 5 Others

Y.Sree Jayanthi, Vs State of Telangana, Rep by its Pri. Secretary to Government

Chinala Mysaiah, (Died as per LRs P3 to P6) Vs the Jt.Collector at Hyderabad and 3 Others

Ravula Naresh, Vs The State of Telangana

Bairi Rakesh Kumar Vs Ramana Reddy

Bhukya Shankar Vs Smt. a. Vani Prasad, IAS