Smt. Jonnabhatla Indira Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1427 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Jonnabhatla lndira, w/o: Late Jonnabhatla Chandrasekhara Shastri, Aged about 59 yrs Occ. House Hold RJo H. No 1-103, PIot no 79 Shantinagar Cross Roads Vanastalipuram, Hayatnagar mandal Rangareddy district

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary for Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakadikapul Hyderabad

¶13

3 The Tashildar, Hayathnagar lr/andal Hayatnagar, Rangareddy district

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in^the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court^maybe pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in causing^illegal interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the^petitioner in^her housing plot bearing no. 1 54 admeasuring 31 1 Sq^yards in Sy no¹ 38,¹ 39,^140, 141 ,142 and 114 situated at Bagh Hayatnager, Hayatnagar, Mandal, Rangareddy district by erecting flexi banner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct^the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her housing^plot without due process of law and notice to her.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the r i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n: y be pleased to direct the respondents not to cause illegal inlerference in the pe i ceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in her housing plot bearing no. 54 admeasuring 311 Sq yards in Sy no 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142 and 4 situated at Bagh Hayatnager,Hayatnagar, Mandal, Rangareddy district, per ling disposal of writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

i-'

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. L427 of 2O2L

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in causing illegal interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in her housing plot bearing No. 154 admeasuring 311 Sq.yds in S1'.Nos. 13g, 139, 14O, I4I,I42 arrd l14 situated a Bagh Hayathnagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District by erecting flexi banner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her tousing plot without due process of law and notice to her and pleased to pass any such further order or orders.

¶25

Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner late J.Chandrasekara Shastri, has purchased housing plot No.154 admeasuring 311 Sq.yds in Sy.Nos.138, 139, t4O, t4l, 142 and, 114 situated at Bagh Hayathnagar, Hayathnagar Taluk in the name of his father, J.Purushotham Sharma, uid.e registered sale deed bearing Doc No.6651 of 1985, dated 23.05.19g5, from

¶26

2

¶27

its lau,ful o<sup>rners by name Erra jangaiah an: others and ever since the date of purchase, he was in pr : session zrnd enjoyment of the sarrle. The originaI purchaser J.Purushotham Sharma expired on 06-O!).016. The husband of the petitioner J.Chandrasekara : hastri, u,ho also expired on 15.08.20 19, leaving behind t I : petitioner, three daughters and his mother as his i:ga1 heirs Accordingly, the petitioner had been in the pos ;ession and enjoyment of the land. Later, the Government r f Telangana has permitted the plot owners to get their plotr; regularized, accordingly, the petitioner filed al applicatior before the Government, seeking regularization of her p I ,t arrd also paid a sum of Rs.1,OOO/ 1n respect of r ot No.154, admeasuring 31 1 Sq.yds at Hayatnagat uiclc apphcation No.M/PEDA/ 03756512020, dated 14.LO.2O2O i nd the said regularization application is still pendinl; with the Government

¶28

While so, on \9.0I.2021, the petitioner trii ing noticed that a flexi banner which has been erected op I rsite to her plot stating that the petitioner's plot a_tor-rg with other \

¶29

3

¶30

@

¶31

adjacent four open plots in Sy.No.114 is Government land and no dealing should be rnade and no encroachment shall be caused, otheru,ise the,v u,ill be prosccuted as per lag' Aggrieved there by the prescnt rn,rit petition has been filed

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner rvould submit that the petitioner is the successor of the sale deed u,hich has been executed in favour of tltc father in-lar.i of the petitioner uide registered sale decd bearing Doc.No.665 I ol 1985, dated 23.05.1985 from thc law,ful orrners. That being the case, the official respondenLs, without causing any notice and without following due process of law had erected the sign board and trying to dispossess the petitioner unlarvfully from thc said plot, hence he sceks indulgence of this Court to allog, this u,rit petition

¶33

On the other hand, b1, liling counter, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing lor respondent No.3 would submit that upon survey of the land by the Mandal Surveyor, it was found that the subject plot falls within the Government land bearing Sy.No.114 of Bagh Hayathnagar village, Hayathnagar l,landal, Ranga Reddy

¶34

4

¶35

District. As per the Khasra Pahani for thr:^. ear 195.1 55, the land bearing Sy.No.1 14 admeasuring A<:.r .29 guntas is Government land classified as 'Gairan Strr I rLri' and the pattatlars of tl-re abovc lands appears to 1 r r e convcrtcd Lheir Iands into plots nhile including he part of (iovernment land in Sy.No. 114 of Bagh H a5,'eLt l nagar Village and sold to various persons including thc pr:,r ioner herein Upon the survev conducted in accordance' .rth larr.. thc Government has crected the sign board over t're land. The surve\r report also corroborates i.l,ith the' :lairr-r oI t]'rc (lovernment

¶36

Lcarned Assistant Government Pleader^' ,,ould furthcr submit that the petitioner stated to have 1> rrchascd the 1n subject plot Sy.No.138 to 142 and 1 14 of l3agh Hayathnagar Village and as per the revenue r rcords. lands u1 Sv.Nos. 138 to 142 are Inam lands class fied as Mafi lnam and not patta lands, and Sy.No.114 i,. Gor.ernrnent land classified as Gairan Sarkari. It is fur ti :r submitted that the petitioner herein is not in possession ,f the subject land ar-rd it is vacant on the spot and therefor r the question of interference does not arise.

¶37

5

¶38

, I

¶39

7 . Learned Assistant Governmen[ Pieader for Revenue further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application under LRS scheme for regularization \'ith the municipal authorities and an,v regularization il issr-red is not valid for Government land. It is lurther submitted that though the petitioner purchased the housing plot No. 154 admeasuring 31 1 Sq.yds covered b-v Sy. Nos. 138 to 142 and I 14, the LRS application [iled b_v the petitiorrer through online is only in respect of Sy.No.s13B to I42, n,hich clearlv indicates that the petitioner is l-ravir-rg no right over the land in Sy.No.1 I4, which pertains to the Government land and the same is notified under Section 22 A of the Registration Act, 1908, prohibiting any transactions over the land. Hence, he seeks to dismiss this writ petition

¶40

B. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and upon perusal of the material, it is an admitted fact that the application of the peittioner for LRS schcme for regularization of the house plot No. 154 admeasuring 31 1 Sq.yds covered by Sy.Nos.138 to 742 and 114 of Bagh Hayathnagar IS pending. Upon perusal of the counter

¶41

6

¶42

:rffidavrt, it is submitted by rcspondent No.3^" hsildar that he has never attcmpted to interfere into the ;ulr-iect lzrnd ar-rd Lhc larrrl in question is the Government I ur(l . Undcr tlrese crrcttnlstarrces, this Court deems it a1 1,1rr11f i21,' 1o clircct tl're rcspondents hcrein not to take an1 llcgzLl aclion against thc pctitioner r,i,ithout following the dr c procedure as conte:mpl:rted under law. However, if suc r sit rration is s arranted, thc respondents shall cause neces; tr-r' notice to the pclitioncr- in accordance with law and tak ;rppropn.rte action.^'lhe Status-Quo obtained as on to::1, sl'rall be maintained bv both the parties till finalizatio r of tl're LRS application filed by the petitioncr

¶43