Disposed

Gummadi Swaroopa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2025WP/30177/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pattadar assignee alleged Forest Department interference with her assigned land claimed as Reserve Forest. Court disposed of the writ petition directing Revenue and Forest officials to conduct a joint survey and demarcate the boundary within four weeks, restraining the petitioner from encroaching into Compartment No.183 of South Singaram Block.

What did the court decide?

Joint survey/demarcation of Sy.No.105 by Revenue and Forest officials within four weeks; interim non-interference subject to due process; no costs.

Gummadi Swaroopa Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRDDAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MBS JI,.iSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

IT PETI N NO:30177 F 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gummadi Swaroopa, Wo: Gummadi Kotaiah. aged about 42^years, Fbuse Wife, R/o Dudekulapalli Village , Bhqpalapalli Mandal, Warangal Diskict, State of Telangana.

¶9

.,.PET|TtONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶12

Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli lvlandal,^{phupalapalli,} Warqngal Distrlct,

¶13

Divisional Forest Ofiicer, Warqngal North, Hanumakenda. Warangal District.

¶14

R-ange Officer, Forqst Department, \grth Range, BhUpalapalli, Bhupalapalli Mandal, Warangal District.

¶15

...RESPOTtDENTE

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndla praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High^pgurt nay be pleased to issue a writ or direction under Article 226 of lhe CQnstitutlon of lndia, particularly one in the nature of writ pf MANDAMUS declaring the actioo of the respon{ents in interfering with possession and enjoyment of the pe(rfigners lanls in S No, 10tr1282 in extent Ac 2-00 and S No 105l2B4 i1 an gxtanl pf 4s 115 qf Dudekulapalli Village, Bhupalapalli Mandal,^Waraqgal Districl. as^qrbitrary, unjugt and illegal , besides the violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and direct the respondents not to interfere with^petitioners possession lnd enjoyrpgll of the land in S No, 1051282 in an extent of Ac 2-00 and S No, 1Q5l2Q4 in aO exlent of Ac 1:15 Guntas of Dudekulapalli Village,^Bhupalaplll Marldsl, Wqralgal Qistrict.^after calling^{for the records.}

¶17

t.A. NO: 10F^{2015(WF'MP.NO: 39037 OF2015}

¶18

Petition under^{fiection151 CPC prayingthat in the circums!ancesstated} intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,thet{ighCou(may.bepleasedto direct the^{respondentrinot to dispossessthe petitionqr fromthe land in S N9'} 1oul282^{in an extent of Ac 2:00qnOin S No' 105/284in an eltent 4c 1rl!} Gqntag^pf Qglekulapalli^{Village, Bhupalapall!Mandal, WarangalDi9[tictpendiqg} the^wP

¶19

9ogns91^{for the Petiti,rner: sRtNUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY} Ccunsel for the^{Resprndent Nos.1end 2: QP FORREVENUE}

¶20

Counsel^{for the ResprndentNos..3} lqd 1:^{CP FoBFOBESTS}

¶21

The Court made^{the f':llowingtORDER}

¶22

1,. o

¶23

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶24

WRIT P ION No-3O177 of 201s

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

.,Heard^{SriNuthalapatiKrishna Murthy, learned} counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the tearned Government Pleader for Forest, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶27

The oetitioner aDDroac ed the Court seektnq Draver as under:

¶28

"...to issue a writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of writ of "MANDAMUS" declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's lands in S.No.105/282 in extent Ac.2-00 and S.No.105/284 in an extant of Ac.115 of Dudekulapalli Village, Bhupalapalli Mandal, Warangal District as arbitrary, unjust and illegal besides the violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land in S.No.105/282 in an extent of Ac.2-00 and S.No.105/284 in an extent of Ac.1-15 Guntas of Dudekulapalli Village,

d;3

SN, J \ P 30t77²⁰¹⁵

Bhupalaplri Mandal, Warangal District. after^{calling for} the record s...".

¶33

The cas3 of the petitioner, in brief, is that^the l)etitioner was assignec Ac.5.15 guntas of land in^{Sy.Nos.105/189,} lO5/19t, 10>/282 and l05l294 of^{DudekulapalliVillage,} Bhupalapalli tvandal, Warangal^District by^{the Governmontin the} year 2010 an,i was issued Pattadar Pass Book. Howevr:r,^{in the} third week of August, 2015, the^{ForestBeatOfficer claimedthat} 3.15 acres of the^{petitioner'sassignedland is a Reserve Forest} and prohibitecl the^{petitioner from cultivatingit. Despit€lshowing} the petitioner'r;^{pattadar passbook,which was issuerJ by the} respondent lrlo.2, the respondent authorities^{without ccnsidering} the same and^rrvithout following due^{processof law, dug a trench} and threatenod the^petitioner not^{to enter into the s;aid land'} Aggrieved thereby the^{petitionerapproachedthe Courl:by filing} the present^{,^/rit} Petition.

¶34

PERUSED THE^RECORD

¶35

Learned Assistant Government^Pleader for^{Fore:;tplacing} reliance on tl-^e averments made^{in the counter} affidavit^filed on behalf of the^respondent No.4, submits that the respondents are

¶36

SN, J wP 30177 2015

¶37

¶38

not interfering with the petitioner's subject land located in Sy.No.105 and its sub-divisions and that, the petitioner under the guise of Patta in Sy.No.1O5/284, is encroaching into Compartment No.183 of South Singaram Block.

¶39

This court, on 16.09.2015, in W.P.M.P.No.39037 0f 2O15 in the Dresent writ oetition, oassed interim orders in favour of the Detitioner observinq as under:

¶40

"It is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of land in Survey No.105/282 in an extent of Acs.2.00 and Survey No.105/284 in an extent of Ac.1.15^guntas of Dudekulapalli Village, Bhupalapalli Mandal in Warangal District, and the petitioner flled^proof in support of the title.

¶41

In the circumstances, the respondents shall not interfere with the subject land, except following due process of law. "

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest submits that the writ petition could be disposed of direetinE the respondents to follow due^process of law with the clear stipulation that appropriate action would be initiated against the petitioner in accordance to law, in the event the petitioner encroached into Compartment No.183 of South Singaram Block.

¶43

¶44

SN, J \'P 30177 2015

¶45

7, A bare lerusal of the averments made in^{the paragraph} No.7 of the counter affidavit indicates that in order^{to resolve the} dispute over the subject land^the respondent^{No.4-ForestRange} Officer, Bhupi:lpally vide Rc.No.355/BN/2015,^{dated 14.10.2015,} had requesterJ the respondent No.2- Tahsildar,^{Bhupalpally to} conduct^joint inspection of the land and demarcate^{the subject} Reserve For,e:;t Boundary line. In response to^{the said letter,} the M.R.O, httd addressed a letter to the^{AssistantDirector,SLR} asking surrrelr to be conducted at^{District level, as the lands are} situated in the: boundary of Warangal^{and Karimnagar District.}

¶46

8.7 akino into consideration

¶47

a) Tlte submissions made by the^{learnedcounsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitionerand the learned} Assastant Gr)vernment Pleader^{for Forest appearingon} behalf of the respondent^{Nos.3 and 4,}

¶48

b) Tlre interam orders of this^{Court dated} 15.09.2015 lrassed in W.P.M.P.No.39O37^{of 2015 (referred} to and extracted above),

¶49

c) The averments made at^paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the counl:er affidavit filed on^{behalf of the respondent} No.4,

SN, J wP 30t77 2015

I I

d) Bringing on record the averments made an the counter affidavit that the respondents are not inter-fering with petitaoner's peaceful possession in Sy.No.1O5 and its sub-dlvisions and,

¶54

The wrat petition is disposed of directing the respondents Nos.2 and 4 to initiate appropriate steps and implement the instructions issued vide letter RC.No.355/BN/2O15 dated 14.10.2015 of the Forest Range Officer, Bhupalpally to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhupalpally to conduct joint survey with Revenue and Forest officials with respect to Sy.No.lO5 of Dudekulapaili Village, Bhupalapalli Mandal, Warangal District within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the event, survey had not been conducted as on date. It is however observed that the petataoner shall not encroach into the Compartment No.183 of South Singaram Block and in the event petitioner encroaches into the said subject forest land, the .espondents are directed to follow due process of law and anitiate the required action against the petitioner as per Law. However, there shall be no order as to costs

SN, J w, 30177²⁰¹⁵

The misr:ellaneous^{applications,if any pending, shall stand}

¶59

closed.

¶60

SD,'-T. JAYASREE ./ ASSI REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

ON OFFICER

Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli Mandal, Bhupalapalli, Warangal Distri:t,

¶65

' n3ffi,,:fii:?J ;, [3iB]1,?,El,rtme nt, North Range, Bh u pa ta pa ili, Bhuparapail i

¶66

One CC to Sri Nuthalapati Krishna lVlurthy, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CCs to 'i;p for Forests, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶67

Two CC to^-fl're 13P for Revenue, High Court for the State of Te,angana, af HyderapadIOLtT]

¶68

Two CD Copier;

¶69

¶70

BS b.

3230

HIGH COURT

DATED:03102,t2025

ORDER

:-lHt Sla 14:
Y
^,
5
2 6 flAfl 2025
C:
't
,tt
-t'
.\ 1)

¶78

WP.No.30177^{ot 2015}

¶79

DISPOSING^{(f,F THE WRIT PETITION}

¶80

WITHOUT^C0STS

¶81

/o /t /t^,

Gummadi Swaroopa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gummadi Swaroopa v. The State of Telangana

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

K.Maheshwar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Muthineni Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sankineni Ravinder Rao Vs Sri. P. Vijayender Reddy.

Imran Rupani Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Gtn Engineering (India) Limited Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Syed Hameeduddin Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited