Disposed

Bommagani Rajaiah , Yendapalli Rajaiah v. Mr P Sampath

Telangana HC17 Sept 2025CC/1121/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nine cultivators sought protection from dispossession of 'Kuru Kammi' lands in Survey Nos.306 and 307, Rayadandi village, claimed pursuant to a 1986 writ appeal judgment and Lokayukta orders directing consideration of re-conveyance. Finding discrepancies in official lists but possession shown in pahanis, the court restrained respondents from dispossessing them without due process, directed complia

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 directed not to dispossess petitioners from Survey Nos.306 and 307 and to comply with the 22.07.1986 W.A. judgment within one month; C.C. No.1121 of 2021 closed without costs.

Bommagani Rajaiah , Yendapalli Rajaiah Vs Mr P Sampath — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION N O:20741 OF 2021

¶8

ALONG WITH CONTEMPT CASE NO.1121 0F 2021

¶9

W.P.No.2074't of 2021

¶10

Between:

¶11

Bommagani Rajaiah , Yendlpaili Bajaiah, s/o Late Bommagani Lingaiah, 4Se.^{0z Years, Occ. Retired Govt. Eniployee, R/o} . H.No.s_gst"g, F"dJi;o"t 9IgTOrn_.1.,Ur9t,^{Rayadandi RevenueViilage, Anthergron} MinA;1,^p-eJJ"pLlfi District - 505208.

¶12

Bommagani Pushpalatha, W/o Late Venkataswamy, Age. 75 years, Occ. A9riculture,.^{R:/o H.No. 2- 19, peddampet} Grarir'pan""huvjt. niviOrnOi Revenue Village, Anthergaon [\rtandal, pedd'apalli Oistrici_ SOBZjb.^'-'-'

¶13

Bomm.agani Srikanth, S/o Late Venkataswamy, Aqe. 31 years. Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o H.No. 2-19, peddampet Crampaiinavat,' na-vaOinOi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, peddapalli Oistiici _ sO5iOB.^"-.,*--"

¶14

Bandi Ravi, S/o Late Bandi^Guruvaiah, Aged 43 yrs, occ. Agricurture, Fr/o. H.No.3-7111, Peddampet GrampanchayJt, nayaoahOi- i"rtn*'"v,irig", Anthergaon Mandal,^peddapalli District - SOSZOg.

¶15

5 Bandi Ramachandram, s/o Late Narayana, Age. sg years, occ. Agricurture, R:/o- H.No.4-29, Peddampet GrampanchayatJ nayadanOi'R;v;nuE Vili;g", Anthergaon Mandal,^peddapalli Distiict - sO52OB.

¶16

Bandi .Ramulu, s/o Late Bandi Komaraiah,Age s3 years, occ. Agricurture, R:/o- H. No.3-63, Peddampet .Grampanchayatl nayaianOl' R-evenuE Vili;ge, Anthergaon Mandal,^peddapalli Distiict _ 50-5208.

¶17

Bandi Veeraiah, S/o Late Bandi chandraiah, Age 40 years, occ. Agricurture, R/o. Pe{dampet Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenle Viitage, dih*d;;" Mandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶18

B. Bandi Pochaiah, s/o Late Bandi Komaraiah, Age 58 years, occ. Agricurture, F/o. .P9{dalpet _G^{rampanchayat,} ^Rayadand^{i "Revenle} ViilagL, dihed;;n Mandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶19

Thati. Vijaya Laxmi, wo Thati Kommaraiah, Age. 4T years, occ. Agricurture, flo_-f,No^{1-3-13t3t1,Vidyut Nagar, Ramajundani,} F.bO-rprrii^"OirtiiJi'_ 5050208.

¶20

,.....PETITIONERS

¶21

AND

¶22

'1 . The State of Telangana, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶23

The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶24

The District Collector, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶25

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli Division, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶26

The Tahsildar, Anthergaon lVlandal, Peddpalli District Telangana.

¶27

....,RESPONDENTS

¶28

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 the Respondents in trying to dispossess the Petitioners from their respective agricultural lands falling in Survey No.306 and 307 for an extent of admeasuring Acres 9.21 Guntas and Acres 3.29 Guntas respectively situated at Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon IVlandal, Peddpalli District as identified, localized and admitted by the Respondents during the survey conducted pursuant to the judgment dated 22.O7.1986 in W.A. No.774 of 1986 and order rlated O2.O7.2013 in complaint no. 3323120'1 3/8 1 of Hon'ble Lokayukta and in violation of the same, wherein the possession of the petitioners was protected by the Honble Division Bench and also by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, violative of the proVisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 more particularly section 24, violative of principles of natural justice, colorable exercise of power, deliberate willful disobedience of the directions and violative of Articles 14,21 and 3004 of Constitution of lnd ia.

¶29

|.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶30

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 restrain the Respondents from interfering, dispossessing and from planting trees

¶31

¶32

under the scheme of Bruhath Palle prakruthi Vanam of the State Government which scheme was formulated as part of Haritha Haram programme of the State Government in the respective agricultural lands of the petitioners falling in survey No. 306 and 307 for an extent of admeasuring Acres g.21 Guntas and Acres 3.29 Guntas respectively situated at Rayadandi Revenue village, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddpalli District as identified, localized and admitted by the Respondents during the survey conducted pursuant to the judgment dated 22.o7.1986 in w.A. No. 274 of^'1986 and order dated 02.07.2013 in complaint no.3323t2013181 of Hon'ble Lokayukta.

¶33

!.A.NO:2 OF 2021

¶34

Petition Under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to modify the order dated 2210912021 made in w.p No 2074112021 and also dismiss the writ petition.

¶35

I.A.NO:3 OF 2021

¶36

Between

¶37

The State^of Telangana, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶38

The State ol Telang_ana, Revenue Department, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶39

The District Cgllector, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli Division, peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶41

The Tahsildar, Anthergaon Mandal,Peddpalli District Telangana.

¶42

.....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶43

AND

¶44

1 Bommag,ani Rajaiah , Yendqpalli Rajaiah, S/o Late Bommagani Lingaiah, 4Se.^{0Z Years, Occ. Retired Govt. Employee,Rl/o . H.No.5-9S/-S,eeOO;mpei} p.rqrygan_cfrgygt, Rayadandi Revenue Vitlage, Anthergaon Mandal, peddapalli District - 505208.

¶45

2 Bommagani Pushpalatha, W/o Late Venkataswamy, Age. 75 years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o H.No. 2- 19, Peddampet Grarirpanihayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶46

J Bommagani Srikanth, S/o Late Venkataswamy, Age. 31 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o H.No. 2-19, Peddampet Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon lvlandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶47

4 Bandi Ravi, S/o Late Bandi Guruvaiah, Aged 43 Yrs, Occ. Agriculture, Rt/o. H.No.3-7'll'1, Peddampet Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶48

q Bandi Ramachandram, S/o Late Narayana, Age. 59 Years, Occ. Agriculture, RJo- H.No.4-29, Peddampet Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon l/andal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶49

tl Bandi Ramulu, S/o Late Bandi Komaraiah,Age 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o- H.No.3-63 Petdampet Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Vlllage, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶50

7 Bandi Veeraiah. S/o Late Bandi Chandraiah, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Pe{dampet Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶51

8 Bandi Pochaiah, S/o Late Bandi Komaraiah, Age 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Peddampet Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District - 505208.

¶52

I Thati Vijaya Laxmi, Wio Thati Kommaraiah, Age. 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o H.No. 1-3-131311 , Vidyut Nagar, Ramagundam,^peddapalli District - 5050208.

¶53

.....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶54

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 vacate the interim order dated 01/09/2021 in W.P No 207 411202'l and also dismiss the writ petitio n.

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI T.SURYA SATISH

¶56

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI CH.RAVI KUMAR, AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶57

C.C.NO:1121 OF 2021

¶58

Between:

¶59

1 Bommagani lajaiah , Yendapalli Rajaiah, S/o Late Bommagani Lingaiah, Age 67 Years, Occ Retired Govt. Employee, Ryo H.No.5-95/3, eeOdamp-et plqlngan_cfr9y^at, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, peddapaili District - 505208.

¶60

2 Bommagani Pushpalatha, Wo Late Venkatilswamy, Age 75 years, Occ A9riculture,..^{Rl/o H.No. 2-19, Feddampet Granipanchayat,Rayadandi} Revenue Village Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli Distiict - 505208.

¶61

3 Bommagani Srikanth, S/ o Late^Venkatawamy, Age 3.1 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o H.No. 2,-. 19, peddampet..Grampanctr-ay-at, Rayadlndi Revenu6 Village, Anthergaon Mandal. Peddapalli District - 505208

¶62

Bandi Ravi, S/o Late Bandi^{Gpruvaiah,Aged43 Yrs, Occ Agriculture,Rl/o.} H.No.3-7111 , Peddampet^{Grampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village'} Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli^{District - 505208}

¶63

Bandi Ramachandram,^{S/o LateNarayana,Age 59 Years, Occ Agriculture,} R/o H.No.4-29, Peddampet Grampanchayat,^{Rayadandi RevenueVillage'} Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli^{District- 505208.}

¶64

Bandi Ramulu, S/o Late^{Bandi Komaraiah, Age 53 years, Occ Agriculture,R/o} H.No.3-63, Peddampet^{Grampanchayat,RayadandiRevenueVillage'} Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli^{District - 505208.}

¶65

Bandi Veeraiah, S/o Late^{Bandi Chandraiah,Age 40 years, OccAgriculture,} 'Fl/o. Peddampet Crampanchayat, Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon lVlandal Peddapalli District^- 505208.

¶66

B. Bandi Pochaiah, S/o^{Late Bandi Komaraiah,Age 58 years, Occ Agriculture,} R/o. Peddampet Grampanchayat,^{Rayadandi Revenue Village,Anthergaon} Mandal, Peddapalli District^{- 505208}

¶67

Thati Vijaya Laxmi, Wo^{Thati Komrnaraiah, Age 47 years,. OccAgriculture,} R/o H.No. 1-3-131311, Vidyut^{Nagar,Ramagundam,Peddapalli District-} 505208.

¶68

.....PETITIONERS

¶69

AND

¶70

'1 . N/r P Sampath, The Tahsildar, Anthergaon Manclal, Peddapalli District, - 50551 4 Erstwhile Karimnagar^District.

¶71

Mr.B. Yadagiri, MPDO, Anthergaon^{[Vlandal'Peddapalli District, - 505514} Erstwhile Karimnagar District.

¶72

Smt. l. Anuja, Panchayat Secretary,^(TTS )^{AnthergaonG.ramPanchayat,} Anthergaori Mandal, Peddapalli^{District, - 505514 Erstwhile Karimnagar} District.

¶73

Mr. Janardhan, Technical^{Assistant, (MGNREGA)MPDO Office,Anthergaon} tvlandal, Peddapalli District,^- 505514^{Erstwhile Karimnagar District.}

¶74

[\tlr. Satyana rayana, Assistant Sub-lnspector^{of Police,AnthergaonPolice} Station, Antheigaon Mandal, Peddapalli^{District, - 505514 Erstwhile} Karimnagar District.

¶75

....CONTEMNORS

¶76

Petition Under Sections 10 to^{12 of Contemptof Courts Act 1971 praying} that in the circumstances stated^{in the affidavit file hereinthe High court may be} pleased to punish the contemnors/Respondents^{under section10 to 12 of the} contempt of courts Act,^{1971 for their deliberate,willful violationof the interim} order dated 01logl2o21^{passed in l.A. No. 01 of 2O21 in w.P.No.2O741 oI 2021.}

¶77

Counsel for the Petitioners :^{SRI T.SURYASATISH}

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : GP FOR REVENUE}

¶79

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRt KISHORE RAO PUSKURU (SC FOR TS ZILLA PARISHADS)

¶80

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : G.P FOR HOME

¶81

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶82

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICB^{K. LAKSHMAN} WRIT PETITION No.20741^{OF 2021} ALONG WITH CONTqMPT^{CASENo.l121 OF2021}

¶83

COMMONORDER:

¶84

Heard Mr. T. Surya Satish,^{learnedcounsel lbr the} petitioners and Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar,^{lear-ned Assistzurt(lovernment} Pleadcr appearing on behalfofthe^respondents

¶85

The aforesaid writ petition is filed^{to declarethe inaction} of the respondents in trying to^{dispossessthe petitionersiromtheir} respective agricultural lands in^{Survey Nos.306 and 307,} admeasuring Acs.9.21^{guntasand Acs.3.29guntas,respectively,} situated at Rayadandi Revenue^{Vitlage, AnthergaonMandal,} Peddapatli District, as illegal. arbitrary^{and against the j udgment} dated 22.07.1986^passed by^{a DivisionBenchof this Courl in W.A.} No.774 of 1986 and the order^{dated 02.07.2013 in Complaint} No.3323120131B1^passed by the^Lokayukta.

¶86

Whereas, C.C. No.1l21 of 2021^{is filedalleging willfut} and dcliberate violation of interim order^{dated 0l .09.202 I passed} by this Court in I.A. No.l^{of 2021 in W.P.No.20741ctf 2021.}

¶87

¶88

KL.J WP No 20741 & CC No I l2l of20ll

¶89

4. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:

¶90

i) Thc petitioners herein are nine (09) in number. They arc the owners and possessors of agricultural lands in Survey Nos.306 and 307. admcasuring Acs.9.2l guntas and Acs.3.29 guntas, rcspcctivcl)'. situated at Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthcrgaon Mandal, l'cddapalli District, since decades by way of cultivation

¶91

and are eking out their livelihood. Their claim is as folkrws

¶92

	Rankofpetitioner	Survey No.	Extcnt Acs.Gts
0l	I)etiLronerNo-I	306	1.20
		307	t.31'/,
0l	l'ctitioncrNo.2	307	t.31%
0l	PeLitioner No.3	306	1.27
0.1	Pctitioncr No.4 l,'\s^BandiGtLraraiah^{died lcaving}him \cs.1.20gts.)	306	3.00 (total)
05	ljetitionerNo.i	306	1.02
06.	Pctitioner No.6	306	o?)
iti	t'ctiLionerNo.7	306	1.00
{)8	l)crrtionerNo.8	306	1.02
0(.)	t'ctirionc.No.9^(As r2.dlist.tMay	306	2.t7

¶93

ii) Originalll'. the then Nizam^(iovemment had issued a

¶94

Notification datcd 13.04.1356 Fasli (1946) under Hyderabad Land Acquisition Acr. hrr acquisition of about 2000 acres of land, fbr constmction ol'(]odavari^'I'hcrmal Power Station and Azamabad Industrial Villagc

¶95

iii) t-etcr. the afbresaid acquisition was dropped. IIowever. r[ was assurcd to the landlords that in case the Scheme is materialized.^{the persons} whose lands are under acquisition wouid

¶96

?..7, l'

¶97

3 (t .J u! .r07| & cc \o I Dl ofto2t

¶98

be absorbed in Power Scheme, and in case lhe power Scheme docs not materialize, their lands would be rctumed on lhe condition that the compensation paid to them would be rcfunded to the (]ovemment

¶99

iv) Duc to the Police Action, the Union Govemment had taken over thc administration from the erstwhile Nizam.^'I'he names of Pattadars in revenue records fbr the entire extent of land proposed for acquisition by the Nizam Govemment and recorded thc names of Pattadars in possession column by naming the entire land as "Kurj Kammf' (Govemment Land).

¶100

v) As the State Govemment failed to pay the rents to the t,xcise Trees, one of the land owners filed a writ petition vide W.p. No. 12241 of 1984. Vide order dated 06.03.1986, the ersrwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at I{yderabad, directed the respondcnts therein to pay rental to the petitioner therein regularly and also restrained them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner therein. Liberfy was granted either to release the lands in favour of thc petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to pay back thc amount of compensation received, or acquire the land by

¶101

..X

¶102

¶103

KI,.J Wt No 20?4t & CC No I 12l ot202l

¶104

duly initiating Land Acquisition Procecdings in accordance with law

¶105

vi) Since the Statc^(iovemment did not act in tcrms of thc directions ol'this Court. a group of land owners filed a writ petition vide W .l'. No.2l:l{t ol- 1986 seeking to implement and restore their legal rights. and thc samc was dismissed on 03.03.1986. Aggrievcd by the same. thc petitioners filed a writ appeal vide W.A. No.774 ot' 1986. ttide ludgmenr, dated 22.07.1986, a Division Bcnch o[' this Court modified the judgment dated 03.03.1986 o[ learned Single Judge, directing the Government to consider the entirc issue giving oppofiunity of being heard to the petitioners therein or their rcpresentatives collectively and take a decision with respccr to their.just claims on equitable grounds. Till a decision is taken bv the Govemmcnt, the land would continue to be in possession^()l rcspecti\c pctitioners.

¶106

vii) 1-herealier. pursuanr to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the State^(iovemment had acquired an extent of Acs.187.00 guntas vide G.O.Ms.No.846, Revenue (t-A) Department, dated 22.11.2000 b1, paving compensation to thc respective persons.

¶107

¶108

KI-.J llr, \o l07l I & ( (t \o lltl oltrDr

¶109

viii) A reprcsenlarion dated 2l .06.2010 was made to the Govcmmcnt for implementing the aforesaid judgment in the aloresaid r.vrit appcal. pursuant to the same, the State Government issued a memo dated 07.07.2010 directing thc District Collector to take action for implcmenting the judgment in the said writ appeal. Accordingly, vide letter dated 30.05.2011, the Revenue Divisional Officer (ltDO) called for the list of enjoyers in possession with thcir extent. Thcreupon. vide letter dated27.0l.20l2, the Tahsildar, erstwhile Ramagundam Mandal, after due verification physically, submittcd such [ist.

¶110

ix) Vide another memo dated 30.04.2012 again the State Government directed the District Collector to restoie the ownership rights to the fhrmers as per the aforesaid judgment in writ appeal.

¶111

x) While so, vide Complaint No.3323 of 2013/81, Mr. Kariveda Raji Reddy & others approached the Lokayukta, wherein the Lokayukta passed orders on 02.07.2013 directing thc respondents to undcrtake survey of the lands and take a decision within lour monlhs. Pursuant to the said order, the Government issued another Memo dated 23.02.2015 directing the Collector for implemcntation of the directions. As per the said orders of

¶112

¶113

¶114

KL.I WP No 20?,11 & CC No l12l of2oll

¶115

Lokayukta, fhe^'lahsildar conductcd field survey of entte 'Kurj Kammi' lands and preparcd FMS ivith relerence to the possession of the farmers and submitted a report along with 'Tonch Naksha vide letler dated 2 I . I I .20 14 to the RDO. In the said report, the Tahsildar had mentioned that an extent of Acs.07.01 guntas in Survey No..106 as 'dispute^' in rcspect to approach to the lands made by the petitioner in bctuccn thcm.

¶116

xi) As there \vas no action, a second Complaint No.753l17lR I was made to thc Lokayukta. As per the orders of Lokayukta, vide lctter dated 06.06.201 8, the RDO. sent proposals to the Government for re-conveyance of aforcsaid lands in Ravadandi Revenue Village to its original land owners. Thc District Collector submitted proposals vide letter dated 30.03 .2020 to the Govemment, fbr re-conveyancc of the acquired lands to its original owners/pattadarsi enjoyers/legal heirs in terms of the directions given by the Lokayukta and this Court in the aforesaid writ appeal The same wcrc lbrw'arded to the CCLA lbr consideratiol.

¶117

xii) While the mattcr stood thus, respondent Nos.3 to 5, in utter violation of the afbrcsaid dircctions and judgment. are trying

¶118

¶119

KI,..' wP \o 207,11 & CC No I lll oll02l

¶120

to intcrfere and dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands.

¶121

Thereforc, the present writ petition

¶122

5. CONTENTIONS OF THB RESPONDENTS:

¶123

i) Respondent No.5 filed counter reiterating the aforesaid

¶124

Scheme and the proposals submitted etc. As far as the subject lands are concemed. it is submitted that Government land to an extent of Acs.9.2l guntas in Survey No.306 was identified and allotted lor plantation ol saplings tnder'Bruhath Palle Prakruthi Vanam' Programme since it is feasible for plantation by the then Tahsildar, dated 21.06.2021. Out of the said extent, an extent of Acs.7.01 guntas is vacant and has not been under enjoymcnt/possession of any person as per the enjoyment survey conducted on 2l.l 1.2014 by the Tahsildar. The said land was handed over rc the Mandal Parrishad Development Officer, Anthergaon on 27 .07.2021 duly surveyed and demarcated under cover of panchanama

¶125

ii) l'hc pctitioners herein are not in enjoyment of the lands to an extent ol Acs.07.0 I guntas in Survey No.306. Survey No.307 was not identifled and allotted for the said plantation of saplings. 'Ihe petitioners were never assigned the Government land in

¶126

¶127

(t..J WP \o l0r1l &^(l(l No I l2l oC202l

¶128

Survey Nos.3(16 and 307 lor agriculnrre purposc and never granted assignment patlas, as such. the question of trying to dispossess them from the subject lands does not arise. Therefore. he sought to dismiss the rvrit petition.

¶129

6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

¶130

i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record would disclose that it is not in dispute that originally, the then Nizam Govemment had issued a Notiflcation dated 13.04.1356 Fasli (1946) undcr Hyderabad Land Acquisition Acl for acquisition of about 2000 acres of [and, lor construction of Godavari Thcrmal Power Station and Azamabad Industrial Village However, it was assured to the landlords that in casc the Schcme is materialized, the persons whose lands arc under acquisition would be absorbed in Power Scheme. and in casc lhe Power Scheme does not materialize, their lands would be rctumed on the condition that the compensation paid to them rvould be relunded to the Govemment. In view of the said acquisition, the names o1' the pattadars in revenue records fbr thc enl.irc cxtcnt of land were deleted by mentioning it as "Ku| Kanmi" (Govemment Land)

¶131

¶132

ri! P \o.ltr7ll & ac No I rlr or':2021

¶133

ii) One ol thc land orvners ol the aloresaid land filed a writ petition vide W .P. No. 12241 of 1984, r.vherein^vide order^dated 06.03.1986, this Court dirccted the respondents to pay rental to the petitioner therein regularly and also restrained them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner therein. Liberty was granted either to release the lands in f'avour of the petitioner therein with a direction to the petitioner therein to pay back the amount of compensation received, or to acquire the land by duly initiating Land Acquisition Proccedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, some other land owners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.2148 of 1986 and thc samc was dismissed on 03.03.1986. Challenging thc same, they fited W.A. No.774 of 1986, wherein vide^judgmenl, dated 22.07.1986, the Division Bench of this Court modified the^judgment dated 03.03.1986 of learned Single Judge, directing the Government to consider the entire issue affording opporhrnity of being heard to the petitioners therein or their representatives collcctively and take a decision with respect to their just claims on equitable grounds.^'t'ill a decision is taken by the Govemment, the land^rvould continue to be in^possession of respective petitioners

¶134

¶135

Kl.l \ I) \o l0rl &(a\oIl2lofzar2l

¶136

iii) Ihcreafter, pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the State Govemment had acquired an extent of'Acs. 1g7.00 guntas vldc G.O.Ms.No.846, Revenuc (LA) Department. datecl 22.11.2000 bl,paying compensation to the rcspective persons.

¶137

iv) As per the directions of the Division Rench olthis Court in the aforesaid writ appeal and the orders dated 02.07.2013 and 06.06.2018 passed by the Lokayukta mentioncd abovc. thc respondents conducted field survey of entire^.Kurj Kammi' lands and prepared FMS with reference to the possession ol' the l'armers and submitted a report to the Govemment.

¶138

v) It is contended by the respondents that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in Survey No.306 and that an extent of Acs.07.0l guntas in Survey No.306 was vacant. l-hcretbre. the said extcnt rvas handed over to the Mandat Parishad Dcvelopmcnt Officer, Anthergaon on 27.07.2021 duly survcyed and demarcated under cover <tf panchanama for the purpose of plantation o1. saplings.

¶139

/'^vi) As ljrr as land in Survey No.307 is concemed in his counter, rcspondent No.5 contended that the sanrc was not

¶140

KI,.J $ P \o 20rl I & CC No ll2l ol l0l^I

¶141

idcntified and. thcreforc, it^{u'as not handed over to them.} Therefore, the question of^{interf'eringwith the possessionof the} petitioner and dispossessing thcm^{fiomthc subjectlands does not} anse.

¶142

vii) Perusal of list of particulars^{of Kuruju Kammilands in} Rayadandi Village of the^{-l-ahsidlar. RamagundamMandal fited by} the petitioners along with writ^{pctition. wouldshow that it was} prepared by respondent No.5 -'Iahsildar^{and lorwardedthe same} along with lefter dated 18.04.2016^{to rcspondentNo-3 - Revenue} Divisional Officer, Peddapalli^{Division. '['hough said list contains} names of the petitioners and thc^{cxtentshcld by thcm in both the} aforesaid survey numbers, it does^{not contain the seal and signature} of concemed Officer. However. thc^{officialrespondentsdid not} dispute the said list in the counter filed by^{them. However,in the} subsequent list prepared and lorwarded^{by the RDO, Peddapalli} along with letter No.Bl/174312011.^{dated 31.05'2016 to the} District Collector, Karimnagar, the names of all^{the petitionersdo} not reflect in respect of Survey No.306 and^{only rcflects the name} of petitioner No.9 as against the column^{'field enjoyer'and extent} of enjoyment land as Acs.2.07^{guntas. Undcmeath the column, it}

¶143

¶144

(t.l wPNol07,li & Ca \o lLll oat!lt

¶145

is mentioncd as^'No response' and in remarks column. it is mentioncd as^'Dispute [.and'

¶146

viii) With regard to Survey No.307, R&B Road is being shown as field enjoyer over an extent of Acs.4.t5 guntas. The names ol' IVlr. Bommagani Rajaiah S/o Lingaiah (petitioner No. t hcrein) and Mr. Bommagani Pushpalatha Wo Venkata Sr.vamv (Petitioner No.2) are bcing shown as held enjoyers lbr an extent ol' Acs.l.34% each. In view of the same, it is clear that. the names ol the petitioners were shown in the firs[ list, but in the subscquenl list, which is also hled by the petitioners along with writ petition. the names of all the petitioners are not being shor.r,n cxcept petitioner Nos 1. 2 and 9. The first list submitted by the Tahsildar through letter dated 18.04.2016 contains ten (1) columns. such as S.No., Name of thc Village, Sy.No., Total Extent, pattadar Name. Enjoyment, Extent, Economical Status, Caste and Remarks. whereas, the subsequent list that was prepared and fonvarded by the RDO to the Collector vide letter datcd 31.05.2016. contains only seven (()7) columns, such as Sl.No., Sy.No., Total Exrent olthc Sy.No., Name of the field enjoyer, father,/husband name, epjoyment land and rcmarks. Even the list that r.vas filed bv thc

¶147

¶148

kt ..1 ||'l' \o lt)r1l &⁽ C \o I t ll ot l0ll

¶149

respondents along with counter is also thc samc r'vith that of the subsequent list filed by the petitioners along with the writ petition However, coming to the subject Survey No.306. some other name has been written by striking off thc name of petitioncr No.9, Thati Vilayalaxmi. Thus, there are discrepancies between the frrst list and subsequent list i.e., inclusion of the names of all the petitioners in the first list prepared by respondent No.5 and lorwarded through his [etter dated I 8.04.2016 and de lction of' thcir names except petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 9 in the subsequent list that u,as lorwarded by respondent No.4 to the District Collector along with his letter dated 31.05.2016. On this aspcct, thcrc is no cxplanation fiom the respondents.

¶150

ix) Thus, it is clear that both the lists were prcpared in the year 2016. The respondents filed copies of pahani for the year 2019. Survey No.306 is not shown. However, Survey No.307 is being shown as 'Govemment Land' as against the possessory column. They have not filed copy of pahani fbr the relevant year i.e., 2016 in which year the said lists were prepared to show that the names of the petitioners were not mentioncd as against possessory column. Thus, the conduct of the respondents in not

¶151

¶152

KI .] $;l No 20i41 & CC \o I 12 t oi:o: I

¶153

l'iting of pahani for the year 2016 ancl non_showing the Survcy No.306 evcn in the copy of pahani for the year 2019_20 though shown Survey No.307 appears to bc doubtfur for thc reason the copies ol pahanies filed by the petitioners for the years lgg3_g4 and from 1999-2000 to 20ll show their names as against Survey Nos.306 and 307.

¶154

x) In vicw of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of the respondents that the names of the petitioners were never recordecj in revenue records and that they are not in possession of thc afbresaid surr,oy numbers cannot be accepted. _ Therefore. the pctitioners cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure laid down under law.

¶155

xi) In fact, the respondcnts have to comply with the directions issued by thc Division Bench vide judgment datecl 22.07.1986 in W.A.No.774 of 19g6, wherein the Division Bench directed the Govcmment to consider the entire issue giving opportunit_v of bcing heard to the petitioners therein or their represcntatives collectivcly and take a decision with respect to thcir j;rsfclaims o. equitable grounds. Till a decision is taken bv the

¶156

¶157

It..J \Ll) \o torli & c( \o llll oll0ll

¶158

Government, the tand^{would continue to be in possessionof}

¶159

respective petitioners

¶160

7 CONTEMPT CASE:

¶161

i) It is the contention of the^{petitioncrs that the respondcnts} rlisobeyed the interim orders^{dated 01.09.2021passedby this Court} in I.A. No.l of 2021 filed in the above^{writ petition, whereas,it is} contended by the respondents^{that theyneverdisobey'edthe said} orders by dispossessing^{the petitionerslrom the aloresaid lands.}

¶162

ii) Perusal of cause title of^{writ petitionand the contempt} case would disclose that the^{District Collector,RDO and 'l'ahsildar} are the parties to the writ^{petition.While passingLhe interim order} on 01.09.2021, this Court directed^{them not to dispossessthe} petitioners from the subject^property till^{06.09.2021- l'hesaid} copies of interim order were^{receivedby the District Collectoras} well as the Tahsildar on 03.09.202 I.^{Whereas. the contcmptcaseis} filed against the Tahsildar, MPDO,^{Panchayat Secretary,'fechnical} Assistant from the office of^{MPDO,AssistantSub-lnspectorof} Police in their individual names^{contendingthat the l)istrict} Collector did not^{inform the respondentsin the contemptcase} about passing of such^{inlerimorder and,thcrefore,the respondents}

¶163

=31

¶164

¶165

(I-.J wP No 20741& CC No I 12t of2otl

¶166

hcrein came to thc subject land on 03.09.2021 to ptant saplings. I{ad the respondcnts herein comc to the subject lands on 03 .09.2021 lbr planting rhe saplings, rhe peritioners should have mentioned the said fact in their letter dated Oi .09.2021 submitted to the District Collector and the Tahsildar enclosing copies of the alnresaid intet'im or<Lers. In vier.v of the same, it can be prcsumed that the respondents herein did not try to dispossess the pctitioners liom the subject lands. Even otherwis e, the interim order passed by this Court directing the respondents therein not to dispossess the petitioncrs liom the subject property. Except respondent No.l being the Tahsildar, rcmaining respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are not parties to thc said writ petition. There is no direction to respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein vide the aforesaid inlerim order dated 01.09.202L^-fherelore. the question of respondent Nos.2 to 5 violating the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by this Court willfullv and deliheratcl\ docs not arise.

¶167

iii) As 1ar as respondent No. I is concemed, though he is a party to [he writ petition and there is a direction to him not to dispossess the petitioners lrom the subject land, the petitioner has 2ef-^{filedanv proofro that effect.Evcn in the photographs} filed bv

¶168

¶169

t7 KL.J $P No 20r_.11 & CC . llll dl li)ll

¶170

I I

¶171

the petitioners, respondent^No. t^{is not there. Excepta bald} statement made by the^{petitioners that respondentNo.l has also} violated the aloresaid interim order, thcy have^{not filed any prool} to that cff'ect. Therefore, the^{present contemptfails and the samc is} liable to be dismissed.

¶172

8. CONCLUSION:

¶173

For the foregoing discussion and observation, the^writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 5^nottcr disposscss the petitioners from their respective^{agriculturallands} admeasuring Acs.9.2 1 guntas and Acs.3.29^guntas ln Survev Nos.306 and 307, situated at Rayadandi^{RevenueViltage,} Aanthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District.^{The respondents are} also directed to follow the directions issued^{by the Division Bcnch} vlde^judgment dated 22.07.1986 in W.A.No.774 of^{1986 in respect} of the petitioners and subject lands^{within one (01) months from} the date of receipt of copy of this order.^{C.C. No.l12lof 2021is} closed. In the circumstances of the case,^{thereshallbe no order as}