Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction, or any other appropriate Order oneⁱⁿ the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAT,'IUS, declaring the^action of^{the official} Respondents not cancelling the assignment^{Pattas issued in favour of the} unofficiat Respondents over the Government land in^{Sy.No.667for extent of} Ac.04-04gts, situated at Kothur Village, Dhamaram^{[t4andal, PeddapallyDistrict,} Telangana State even though there is recommendation from^{Respondent No.3} vide No.B/1463/2019 dated 06-07-2019 as^well as^{the Respondent No.4 vide}

¶20

No.821150212019 dated 02-08-2019 for cancellation of Assignment Pattas, as illegal, arbitrary in violation of principles of natural .justice and consequently direct the official Respondents to cancel the assignment Pattas issued in favour of the unofficial Respondents over the Government land in Sy.No.667 for extent of Ac.04-04gts, situated at Kothur Village. Dhamaram trllandal, Peddapally District, Telangana State.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 15'1 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 Respondent No.2 to consider the reports submitted by the Respondent No.3 vide No.B/1463/2019 dated 06-07-2019 as well as lhe Respondent No.4 vide NoB2/150212019 dated 02-08-2019 for cancellation of Assignment Pattas issued in favour of the unoffrcial Respondents over the Government land in Sy.No.667 for extent of Ac.04-04gts, situated at Kothur Village, Dhamaram I,4andal, Peddapally District, Telangana State.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SMT T.SWETCHA, AGP, REP. FOR GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: SRI N.HARI PRASAD

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶28

UIRIT PETITION No.1O54 OF 2O2L

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a^{writ of mandamus} declaring the action of the official^{respondents innot} cancelling the assignment^pattas issued in^{favour of the} unofficial respondents over Government^{land in Sy- No. 667,} measuring an extent of Acs.^{4.O4 guntas, situatedat Kothur} Viltage, Dharmaram Mandal, Peddapally^{District,despite} recommendations from the 3'd respondent^videNo. Bl1463 l2ol9, dated 06.07.2019, and^{the 4th respondent} vide No. 92ll5O2l2019, dated 02.O8.2O19,^{for cancellation} of the assignment pattas, as illegal,^{arbitrary,and in} violation of the principles of natural^justice;and consequently, to direct the official^{respondents to cancel the} assignment pattas issued in favour^{of theunofficial} respondents over the said^{Government land.}

¶31

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submitsthat the} petitioner is the owner and^{possessorofland} admeasuring Ac. 13.38^guntas in^{Sy. No. 669, situated}

¶32

XFffig"x ,

¶33

Pagc 2 of 10

¶34

at Kothur Village, Dharmaram Mandai, Peddapally District, zrnd has been cultivating the said land for a long time. The land in Sy. No. 667, winich is adjacent to the petitioner's land in Sy. No. 669, is Government land covered with boulders and hill rocks ancl is not suitable for cultivation. However, pattas were issued by the Government in favour of unofficial respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in respect of Sy. No. 667

¶35

He submits that aithough the Government issued assignment pattas, the same were not approved by the Assignment Committee. Since the petitioner's land is adjacent 1,o the Government land 1n Sy. No. 667, the unoflrcial respondents 5 to 7, under a false impression, are making baseless claims over the petitioner's iand in Sy. No. 669 and are causing disturbance to his cultivation.

¶36

He further submits that the petitioner submitted. representations to the 3.a and 4,t respondents, pursuant to which the 3.d respondent conducted a survey and

¶37

Page 3 of 10

¶38

fixed boundaries. Yet, the unofficial respondents continue to harass the petitioner. The 3'd respondent also lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Dharmaram, on 12.O4.2016. He contends that^the assignment pattas issued in favour of the^unofficial respondents are not in accordance with^law, AS they were not approved by the Assignment Committee

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tahsildar, Dharmaram Mandal^{(3'd respondent} herein), based on the instructions of the^4th respondent/Revenue Divisional Ofhcer,^Peddapally, dated 02.07.2019, conducted an enquiry and^submitted a report stating that Sy. No. 667 of^{Kothur Village} comprises a total extent of Acs.^{84.19 guntas of} Government land. Out of this, 22^{farmers have} registered for al extent of Acs. 24.15^guntas.The remaining land, i.e., Acs. 69.15^{guntas, consistsof hills} and large stones, making it unfit for cultivation.

¶40

Xt=.-,,* \

¶41

Pagc J of l0

¶42

The 5rh respondent, Pullakolla Kanakamma, has registered her name for an extent of Ac. 1.34 guntas under Khata No. 1497, though no file number is availabie; however, her name is reflected in the Pahani Similarly, the 6th respondent, Pullakolla Yellaiah, has registered for Ac. O.20 guntas under Kheita No. 1212, and the 7h respondent, Pullakolla Nlallaiah, has registered lor Ac. O.30 guntas under Khata No. 1652 Horvever, there is no corresponding registration in the Assignmcnt Committee Register. It is further submitted that respondents 5 to 7 are cultivating only about Ac 1.00 of 1and, while the remaining iand 1S roc\r and uncultivable. As per the official record, the extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas of Government land is designated as Laoni Patta land, but there is no evidence of approval from the Assignment Committee.

¶43

He also submits that respondents 5 to 7, under the mistaken belief that a portion of the petitioner,s 1ancl is Government 1and, have encroached upon the petitioner,s

¶44

Page 5 of l0

¶45

.rry

¶46

are land in Sy. No. 669 and causing law and order lSSUCS.

¶47

It is further stated that^{when theAssistant} was Director, Land Measurements,^Karimnagar, conducting a survey in the^{presence of the Deputy} Inspector of Survey,^{Peddapally, theTahsildar,} Dharmaram, and the Station House^Officer, Dharmaram, the 7tt' respondent,^{PuliakollaMallaiah,} consumed insecticide in an attempt to^obstructthe ofhcial proceedings. Therefore,^{learned counselprays} that appropriate action be taken^{tocancel the} registrations and issuance of^{passbooksreflecting the} Government land in Sy. No. 667 to^{an extent of Acs.} 4.04 guntas, situated in the^{suburbs of Kothur Village,} Dharmaram Mandal, as^{Laoni Patta land, especially} since the land allotted to the^{unofhcial respondents is} not suitable for cultivation

¶48

Learned counsel further submits that,^{based on the} 4th report of the 3'd respondent/Tahsildar,^the

Page 6 of 10

; I I I I i I ; I I

respondent/ Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Peddapalli, vlde proceeding,s No. 82 I 1502 / 2Ot9 , dated 02.OB .2OIg , submitted a report to the 2"d respondent, requesting cancellation of the Pattadar Passbooks issued to respondents 5 to 7 in respect of land to an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas in S1,. No. 667, which were obtained in violation of Section 166(1)(b) of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.

¶53

Smt. T. Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pieader representing the learned Government pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, upon instructions, submits that a detailed enquiry was condlrcted by the 3.d respondent vide proceedings dated 06.07.2019, and the same was forwarded to the 4th respondent. Upon conslderation of the report submitted by the ll.d respondent, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings No. 82 11502 l2Ol9, dated 02.OB.2Otg, recommended to the 2nd respondent that the land to an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas in Sy. No. 667, situated at Kothur Village, Dharmaram Mandal, is recorded as

¶54

Pagc 7 ol I0

¶55

Laoni Patta land in the revenue records, and that the pattas were issued without proper verification of^the revenue record entries, despite the fact that the land^is not cultivable. Accordingly, the 4Lh respondent recommended cancellation of the Pattadar^Passbooks, which were issued in violation of Section 166(1)(b) of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.

¶56

1 1. She further submits that, based on the^pattas granted in favour of the unofhciai respondents, they are creating disturbance and interference in the^petitioner's land. When the 3'd respondent, Assistant Director, Survey and Records, Karimnagar, was measuring and fixing boundaries on the ground, in the presence of^the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Peddapalli, and the Station House Officer, Dharmaram, the 7th respondent^created hurdles in the official proceedings, and a complaint^was lodged against him on 12.04.2016 with the^SHO, Dharmaram Mandal.

¶57

Page 8 of 10

¶58

She also submits that, based on the report of the 3.d respondent, the 4th respondent submitted the matter to the 2"d respondent, and the same is currently pending with the 2ud respondent lor further action

¶59

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents 5 to 7 submits that respondents 5 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the land recorded in their favour in the revenue records. and that they have been issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds. He further submits that the non-approval of the assignment by the Assignment Committee is of no consequence.

¶60

He submits that the allegation of interference by the unofficial respondents with respect to the petitioner's iand in Sy. No. 669 is false and incorrect, and that the unofficial respondents have never obstmctecl the duties of the ofhcia_l respondents while conducting the survey. He therefore seeks dismissal of the writ pertition

¶61

Page 9 oI l0

¶62

i t

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel^forthe petitioner, the learned Assistant Government^Pleaderfor Revenue, and the learned counsel appearing^{on behalf of} unofficial respondents 5 to^{7, and upon pemsalof the} material placed on record, this Court^{observes that the} 3rd respondent, vide letter^{No. Bl1463} 12O19,^dated 06.O7.2019, submitted a^{report to the 4th respondent,,} who in turn lorwarded the same to the^{2'd respondent} vide proceedings No.B2 I l5O2l2Ol9,^{dated 02.08.2019} and the matter is stitl^{pending without any further} action by the 2'd respondent.

¶64

In view of the same, this Court^deemsit appropriate to direct the 2"d respondent^{tocause an} enquiry into the matter by^{issuing notices tothe} petitioner, unofficial respondents 5 to 7, and^{all other} concerned parties, and to^pass appropriate^orders strictly in accordance with law, AS expeditiously AS possible, preferably within a period of^{four (4) weeks} from the date of receipt of a copy^of this^order.

¶65

--S.hAjtsr '

¶66

Pase 10 ol- l0

¶67

Ti1l such time, both parties are directed to maintaln status quo obtaining as on the date of this order

¶68

With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. There sha1l be no order as to costs. As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶69

stand closed.

¶70

To,

¶71

S K. HAVANI SWAMY A NT REGISTRAR i //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER \ 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secr{ta It at, Hyderabad, State of Telanqana.

¶72

The District Collector, Peddapalli District.

¶73

The Tahsildar, Dharmaram lr,4andal, Peddapalli District.

¶74

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District_

¶75

One CC to SRI IV.A.K.MUKHEED, Advocate IOPUC]

¶76

One CC to SRI N.HARI PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl

¶77

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

¶78

B- Two CD Colties BSR GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912025

ORDER

,*.gI C
20 $P mffi
1l);: ./

¶83

WP.No.1054 of 2021

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶85

i
<br>

A. Raghavender Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A. Raghavender Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sama Gopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Chekuri Shekar Vs The State of Telangana

Desineni Sri lakshmi Vs The state of telagana

M/s. Sree Balaji Nagar Residents Welfare Society Vs The State of Telangana

Thatipally Sanjeeva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Rohit Mehta Vs The State of Telangana