Disposed

Akula Krishna Rao, v. The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC4 Apr 2025WP/5094/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging interference with agricultural land and tobacco crop damage during a survey instigated by private respondents; interim protection had stopped interference. With officials committing to due process, the court closed the writ petition directing no action without due process.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to initiate any action on petitioners' land without following due process of law.

Akula Krishna Rao, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 5094 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 Akula Krishna Rao, S/o. Late Venkaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ Agriculture, - Rl/o. H-No.5-43, Prakashnagar Colony, Mandalap-alli Village, Dammapet [V1andal, Khammam District - 507 306.

¶11

2 Kistam Rambabu, S/o. Late K,Narayana, aged about 65 years, Occ {griculture,^{R:/o. H.No.15-160,WardNo.10, Ayyagaripeta, VerirsurRoad,} Sathupalli Town and Mandal, Khammam District - 507 306.

¶12

...PET|T|ONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

The Tahsildar, Kothagudem, Kharnmam District.

¶16

The Mandal Surveyor, Mandal Revenue Office, Mulkalapalli, Mulkalapalli Mandal, Khammam District.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Police Station Mulkalapalli, Mulkalapalli Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶18

Mekala Venkanna, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 60 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Mulkalapalli Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶19

Ivlukka Sarojini, W/o. Kondal Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, Fl/o. Bangaramma Nilayam, Opp Vegetable market, Vemsur Road, Sathuepalli Town and Mandal, Khammam District-

¶20

Mukka Bangaramma, Wo. Pmnaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Bangaramma Nilayam, Opp Vegetable market, Vemsur Road, Sathuepalli Town and [/andal, Khammam District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 No.1 to 4 in interfering in the land bearing Sy.No.36 1/E to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas situated at Mulkalpalli Village and Mandal, Khammam District belonging to the petitioners under the guise of survey of the above land under instigation of unofficial respondents No.5 to 7 and damaging the Tobacco crop therein as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and in violation of principles of natural justice and Article 300-4 of

¶23

Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the responderrts No. 1 to 4 not to enter in the land bearir-rg Sy.No.36'1/E to an extent of Ac-1 20 guntas situated at Mulkalpalli Village anC [,4andal, Khammam District belongil!] to the petitioners under the guise of survey of the above land under in: tiqation of unofficial respondents No.5 to 7,and damaging the Tobacco crop there n

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WPMP. NO:6788 OF 2015)

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 4 not to enter in the land bearir g Sy.No.361/E to an extent of Ac.1 .2O guntas situated at Mulkalpalli Village an I lVandal, Khammam District belonging to tl-re petitioners under the guise of suri ey of the above land under instigation of urofficial respondents No.5 to 7 and d rntaging the Tobacco crop therein pending drsposal of the writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR REVENL E Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 7: SRI R.R.KALYAN

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶30

WRIT PETTTIO N No.5O9 4 of 2O15

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition has been filed declaring the action of respondent Nos. I to 4 in interfering in the land bearing Survey No.361/E to an extent of Ac.1.2O guntas situated at Mulkalpalli Village and Mandal, Khammam District belonging to the petitioners under the guise of survey of the above land under instigation of unofhcial respondent Nos.S to 7 and damaging the Tobacco crop therein as illegal, arbitrary.

¶33

Petitioners claims to be the legal heirs of one Late Kistam Nagaiah who owned Ac.6.2O guntas in Survey No.361 situated at Mulkalpalli Village and Mandal, Khammam District. The petitioners acquired the said property in terms of the partition deed dated 01.O1.1999. Their further case is that on 06.01.2015, the Maldal Surveyor, Mulkalpalri, Khammam District on behalf of respondent No.2 issued notice dated 06.01.2015 to the respondent Nos'S to 7 at their instance to survey the iands of petitioner No. 1 in survey No.361/E to an extent of Ac.1.2O guntas and also land of Akula Laxminarayana in survey No.36l/AA to an extent of Ac. l.2O guntas. The petitioners case is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 with active support of respondent No.4 had interfered in their land with

¶34

¶35

chains, men etc., and damaged the Tobacco crop nnd questioning the same present.writ petition is filed.

¶36

This c.urt in its order dated 03.03.201I. granted interim direction as pra.red for by directing respondent llos.l to 4 not to enter the land bearing survey No.36 l/E to an r.xtent of Ac. 1.20 guntas situated at Mulkalpalli Village and Ma rda-I, Khammam District belonginl3 to the petitioners under the guis: of survey of the above land underr instigation of unofficial respor dent Nos.S to 7 and therea-fter nc counter has been filed by the res rondents.

¶37

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submittbd that subsequent to the ,rrders passed by this Court on^(13.03.201S, there is no interfe rence from the respondents ancl prayed that the said orders may be made absolute.

¶38

Learnt:d Assistant Government pleacl:r for Revenue submits that res,ondent Nos. I to 4 will follow th,: due process of law without initiating any action on the petitioners, property.

¶39

With the above said observation, this Writ petition is closed. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are directr:d not to initiate any action witho ut folrowing due process of raw and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are als,r directed to seek appropriate rerr edy as available under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending,^{shall stand}

¶42

closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO AS TANT RE

¶44

,TRUE COPYII

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To 1. One CC to SRI S.MADAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for theState of Telangana, at

¶48

Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

One CC to SRI R.R.KALYAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

¶51

Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶52

Two CD Ccpies

PSK
TK o

HIGH COURT

DATED:041041202s

ORDER

WP.No.5094 of 2015

,.1E 'n \ c t'"
/ ''
2 o sEt, tn25
.:'.
-t.------ ,--l

¶59

CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

fl
J

Akula Krishna Rao, v. The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Krishna Rao, v. The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Aleti Ramaswamy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Addeboina Guru Sekhar Vs Shri G v Ramesh

Sri.Kurra Vinay Vs Sri Ila Tripathi

Credible Engineering Construction Limited Vs Union of India

Alam Ramesh, Vs The Special Collector (L.a)

Ummareddy Bharathi Vs State of Telangana