Yarrapati Pakeeru Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, is filed questioning the lmpugned Order passed by the respondent No.2 in CMA No.33 of 2024, dated 16.01 .2025 fietd by the petitioner as being illegal arbitrary without considering the evidence filed by the petitioner and violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia apart, and conSequently, stay of the operation of the lmpugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide CMA No.33 of 2024, dated 16.01.2025 and further direct to the Respondent No.4 and their subordinate staff not to dispose the petitioner agriculture land to an extent of Acs.4-05 gts., in Sy.No.292lA (as per mee-seva

¶23

$

¶24

pahani Acs.4-05 gts., in sy.No.292rAt2) situated at Akinepaili (v), Dammapeta (M), Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and in the interest of justice.

¶25

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶26

Petition under s,ection 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay of the operation of the rmpugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide cMA No.33 of 2o24, dated 16.01 .202s and further direct to the Respondent No.4 and their subordinate staff not to dispose the petitioner agriculture land to an extent of Acs.4-05 gts., in Sy No.292lA (as per mee_seva pahani Acs.4_05 gts., in sy.No.292lAl2) situaterr at Akinepaili (v), Dammapeta (M), Bhadradri Kothagudem District pending disposal of the cMA on the file of the 2nd Respondent and in the interest of justice.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.s TO 7: __

¶28

The Court made the foflowing: ORDER

¶29

''-- -.:1: l^1

¶30

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶31

WRIT PETIT ON No. 191 of 202s

¶32

oRDER:

¶33

Heard Sri Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

¶34

The Detitio ner a Droac ed the Cou seekinq

¶35

praver as under:

¶36

"...to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, is filed questioning the Impugned Order passed by the respondent No.2 in CMA No.33 of 2024, dated 16.01.2025 field by the petitioner as being illegal arbitrary without considering the evidence filed by the petitioner and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300_A of the constitution oF India apart, and consequenfly, stay of the operation of the Impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide CMA No.33 of 2024, dated 16.01.2025 and further direct to the Respondent No.4

-11

Ii

2

SN, J WP :il9l 2025

and their subordinate^{staff not todlspose the} petitioner agriculture^{land to an extent of Acs'4-05} gts., in Siy.No.292lA^{(as per mee-seva pahaniAcs;'4-} 05 gts., in Sy.No.292lA/2)^{situatedat Akinepalli(v),} Dammat,eta^{(M), Bhadradri KothagudemDistrict,and} in the inr:erest of^{justice and pass such other order or} orders as this^{Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper} in the r:ircumstances^{of the case."}

¶42

The case of the^{petitioner,in brief, is that the petitioner} is the absolul:e^{owner and possessorof the land to an extent} of Ac.4.05^{guntas in Sy.No.292lA (as per Mee-seva pahani} Acs.4.05^guntas in^{Sy.No.292lA/2) situatedat Akinepally} Village, Dammapeta^{Mandal, Badradri-Kothagudem District'} having^{purcl-rasedthe sameby the fatherof' the petitioner} from one Aktrla^{Viswanathamin the year 1966 and since then'} the^{petitione- has beenin peaceful possessionand enjoyment} of the said^{property. While the matter stood thus' the} respondent t'1o.3^{passedorder dated24'OB'2011in LTR Case} No.2l7/2OLCt/DPT^{directing the Tahsildarto take possession} of the subject^{land into Government custody,without} conducting^{proper enquiry. Against the said order, the}

3

SN, J wP 519t 2025

.a

petitioner filed an appeal vide C.M.A. No.33 of 2024 before the respondent No.2, seeking restoration of the land to the petitioner and the respondent No.2, without considering the evidence submitted by the petitioner, disposed of the said appeal vide orders dated L6.07.2025 directing the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court of law to seek redressal of petitioner's grievance. As per the said orders of the respondent No.2, respondent No.4 visited the petitioner.s property and directed the petitioner to vacate the said subject property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶47

It is the specific case of the petitioner that against the ejectment order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam in L.T.R. Case No.2l7lZOLOlDpT dated 24.OB.2}lt, revision ties to the Government within a period of 60 days from the date of the said order and that, the petitioner would prefer a revision petition to the Government, until then, the petitioner,s interest needs to be protected by passing of appropriate

¶48

4

¶49

SN, J WP:i191 2025

¶50

orders by^{this; Courtsince the petitioneris facingthreatof} dispossession^{by the respondent No'4'}

¶51

Learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader forSocial} Welfare appearing^{on behalf of the respondentNos'l to 3} submits that^{against the order impugned,ttrere is a remedyof} revisionbefc,retherespondentNo'landthepetitioner without avai ing^{the remedyofrevlsion} available^under statute, approached^{this Court by filing} the^{present writ} petition.

¶52

Learned^{counsel appearlng on behalf of the petitioner} furthersubmitsthatthesubjectissueissquarelycoveredby the orders of^{this Court dated 05'02'2025 passed} ln W.P.No.3238^{of 2025.}

¶53

7 Takiryl into consideration:

¶54

a) The facts and circumstances^{of the case'}

¶55

b) The submissions^{made by the learnedcounsel} appearing^{on behalf of the petitioner and the learned} Government^{Pleader for SocialWelfare appearing on} behalf of the^{resPondent Nos. 1 to 3,}

5

SN, J wP 5l9l 2025

, t

t I

c) The fact as borne on record that the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed in CMA No.33 of 2024 by the court of the Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, very clearly indicates that against the said order, revision lies to Government within a period of 6O days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order dated l6.OL.2O25r

¶61

The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer a revision before the Government against the order dated 16.O1.2025 passed by the Additiona! Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam in CMA No.33 of 2O24 within the time period of 6O days as indicated in the impugned order. Upon the petitioner approaching the respondent No.1 by filing a revision within the time period as indicated in the order dated L6.O1.2025, respondent No.1 is directed to pass appropriate orders on the said revision within a peraod of four (4) weeks thereafter on due receipt of the said Revision to be filed by the lpetitioner. Until appropriate orders on merits are passed by the respondent No.l

¶62

6

¶63

SN, J $'r, 5 t9l 2025

¶64

within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter in the revision to be preferred by the petitioner agaitrst the order dated 16.01.2025^passed in C.M.A. No.33 of 2024 by the Court of Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, within the time period of 6O days from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order dated 16.01.2025 by the petitioner, Status-quo is directed to be maintained in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4.O5 guntas situated in Sy.No.292/A (as^per Meeseva pahani Acs.4.O5 guntas in SV.No.292/ Al2) situated at Akinepally Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Badradri-Kothagudem District. However, there shall no

¶65

order as to costs.

¶66

The rriscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶67

closed.

¶68

SD/-A.V.S.^PRASAD

¶69

AEqls[ANr^REGiSTRAR

¶70

//TRUE COPYII orrrcen

¶71

').ir,o*

¶72

'o^{',. ,n" Principal Secretary TribalWelfare Department Secretariat Hyderabad'} State of Telangana

¶73

1. The Appellate^{huthority under Land Transfer.Regulations1969/Additional} Aoent to Goverrmeni^{FO iio, ehaoraari-KothagudemDistrict}

¶74

3 ?ru Fffi il'nliii"iiiv'rXo^{d;Lrft i'a'l'l.er,Res"ul ations 1 e6e/specia I Deputv} " correcioi rtiv enaora'chilim, Bhadradri Kothag.udem District +. ir,e"ri-nsiid i,,,qi*aiiop"t^{lll inAat, Bhadrad ri-Kothagud emDi strict'}

¶75

5 One CC to SRI S.CHANDRA^{MOHAN REDDY, Advocate[OP-UC]} o i;; dc;i" cF' Fon sotrnl^{wElrnne, Hish court for the state of} Telanoana. ,, t'1r6"tu62d. [OUTI

¶76