Katakam Mallaiah, Adilabad Dist Vs Divl Engr., a.P.Tranco., Adilabad Dist

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the HighCourt may be} pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction or especia{ly^Writ of^Mandamus declaring the action of the^{respondent in trying to construct sub stationin the land} hold by the petitioner of an extent^{of Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No. 131 of GarmillaShivar,} Mancherial Town, Adilabad^{Districtwithout noticeand opportunityand without} following the^{procedure contemplated L.A. Act as intentbnal, arbitrary,malafidy,} opposed to principles of natural iustice^{and contraryto L.A. Act and consequently} direct the respondent to^{follow the due process of law in the interestsof justice}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2012^{(WPMP, NO: 25462 OF 20121}

¶16

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may tre pleasedt'o} direct the respondent^{not lo dispossess the petitioner from the land of Ac.1-21gts} in sy.no: 131 of^{Garmilla shrvar,withinthe limits of Mancherial to and Mandal,} Adilabad District^{pending disposal of the writ petition.}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI K.V.BHANU PRASAD}

¶18

Counsel for^{Respondents:SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH, SC FOR APTRANSCO} The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶19

)

¶20

HOtI'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDI\

¶21

ORDERi

¶22

Hearcl Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learnerl counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri l4ir Aqueel Ali, learned Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL, appe aring on behalf of respondent.

¶23

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeki,ng prayer

¶24

as under:r

¶25

"...tc is;Lre a Writ or order or direction or espt:cial y Writ of Manrla'mus declaring the action of the resl;o'rclent in tryinll to construct sub-station in the lanl hDlo 11, the pel:ition()r of an extent of Ac.1.21 gts in !;y. I'lo. L l1 of Garrrrilla Shivar, Mancherial Town Adilabad l)rstr cl \i i:houI noi:ic,3 an,J opportunity and without followin.c tlre p o rodure corrterrrrprliated L.A. Act as intentional, arbitrrry, rra a fidy, opl)osec :o principles of natural^justice and cor lr,rr / to L. A. Act^,a rrl consequently direct the responde rt tc f0ll )\v the du,: [rro,:e ss of law in the interests of ]ustice' .

¶26

Ttre car;(t of the petitioner, in brief, is thar: the f)ei:ir.ioner is the owner ard^possessor of the agricultural land tc an extent of Ac. 1.21^guntar; in Sy.No.131 of Garmilla Shivar within -fre limits of Man(:h,3riill town and Mandal, Adilabad Dist-ict . nd the

\

2

I I Ii I

SN, J wP { 9E65 2012

petitioner's name is also mutated in the revenue records. On 23.O6.2OL2 the respondent oFficials started digging treftches in the petitioner land for the purpose of constructing sub-station. The petitioner made a representation on 25.O6.20L2 to the respondent informing that the land is a patta land and that they cannot dig trenches high handedly. However, the officials of the respondents again made an attempt to dig trenches on 26.06.2012 without any order from the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶32

PERUSED THE RECORD

¶33

4, Counter affidavit has been filed bv the resoondents and in oart cular oara No.6 is extract hereu nder.

¶34

"6. It is further subrnitted that, from the above stated facts it is thus clear that the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of land in Sy. No. 131 to an extent of Ac.l.21 Gts of Garmila Shiver, Mancherial Town, whereas the respondent company herein is constructed the land allotted by the revenue authorities to an extent of 31 Gts in Sy. No. 135 of Garmila Shiver, Mancherial Town, as such the land claimed by the petitioner is different from the land in which respondent company had constructed, therefore there is no truth in

3

SN, J ',/t^t98652012

4 I \

the clairn petitioner that the construction of sLb-slation ha:; bee n made in Sy.- No. 131, as such th(-'ro^rs no merit in ]:he writ petition and the same is liaDlt: :.c be dismiss;ec ".

¶39

5. Tqlin<1into consideration :

¶40

The av,erments made at para No.6 of the €ounter affidavit filr:d on behalf of the respondents, which clearly indicates that the land claimed by the petil:ioner is different fr'cm that of the land in which the re!;pondent company h.rd constructed the sub-station and therefore, this Court opines that the plea of the petitioner that the respondents had constructed sub-station in the land held by the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.21 gr.rntas in Sy.No.131 of Garmilla shivar, Mancherial Town, Adilabad District is u ntenable and hence rejected.

¶41

Bringirrq the said averments made at para lrlo.6 of the corrnter affidavit filed on behalf of responrle:nt, on record, the 'writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no^,)rder as to costs.

4

I

SN, J wP 19t65 2012

As a sequel, the^{miscellaneouspetitions, if any,pendingin}

¶46

the Writ Petition^{shall alsostand closed.} I

¶47

,