V. Govardhan REddy, Vs The District Collector

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WriUs, Order/s or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No,2 in demolishing the compound wall and in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of ihe petitioners over their plots bearing nos.360/2 land admeasuring 130 sq.yds each, situated in Sy.No.69 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally lvlandal,^R.R. District.

¶15

l-A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 6687 OF 2U2l

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to issue interim directions lo respondents not to interfere with the peaceful^possession and enjoyment over plots of the^petitioners bearing nos.360/2 land admeasuring¹³⁰

¶17

sq.yds each, situated in Sy.No. 69 of Miyapur Village, Seri ngampally Mandal, R.R. District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. VENKATA MAYUR

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.5265 OF 2012

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶25

2 . Learned coun sel for the petitioners submits that the petrtloners are questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in demolishing the compound rvall and interfering with the possession of the petitioners over their plots bearing No.360/2 land admeasuring 130 Sq. Yarcls in S_r.,.No.69 situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampal l-r' Mandal. Ranga Reddy District, without following due process of Ias'.

¶26

Learncd cor_rnsel lor the petitioners further submits that while admitting thc marter, this Court has granted interim order dated 29.02.2012 br directing the respondent authorities not to interfere u,ith the posscssion of the petitioners in rcspect of the subject propcrt'. l. t ir* o[ the same, requested this Court to allor.r, the writ petition br clirectirg tl-re respondents not to interfere rvith the possession of thc pctitioncrs in respect to the subject propcrty u,ithout lollos ir-rg duc process o!" lar.r,.

¶27

a

¶28

On the other hand, basing on the^{cou t} ter filed by the respondent No.2, learned^{AssistantGovernmentPle} eder for Revenue submits thatthe land owners^{have taken advantagr:} of the patta land in Sy.No.69 and some illegal^{purchasersoccupieri} the Government land in Sy.No.69/1 admeasuring^{Ac.19-14gunta:;} and constructed some structures. In view of the^{same, a Suppltr} :rentary Sethwar issued in respect of Sy.No.69/ 1,^r.r'hich is^per ding before the Commissioner/Director, Sur-vey, Settlement^anrl Land Records, Hyderabad.The petitioners approached this^Cour - merely^stating that they have purchased thc subject^{land as} ther: is no documcnts will be entertained by the Registration Deparl-mcr^I and encroached the Government land. [n order to^protect thc^(- cvernment land, respondents have interfered u'irtr thc^possessiort o' ,he petitioners to stop illegal encroachments and in^{proceeding u'ith} ,he construction. Hence, requested this Court to dismiss the u'rit^peti .ion.

¶29

After hearing both sicles and on^polr sing the entire material on record, this Court is ol the considcred ,ier,r' that there is dispute with regard to the boundaries be[u'een^S,r. tlos.69 ay:,d 69 ll as the petitioners having patta land in Sr'.No.69 an< the Government land belongs to Sy.No.69/ l. The contention of tf e respondents is that under the guise of patta land in Sy.No.69. t 1e pattadars are occupying the Government land ir-r 51 . No.69/ i, here is pending

¶30

3

¶31

Supplementary Sethn'ar issued in respect of Sy.No.69/1 before the Commissioner/ Director, Sun ey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad. It is contended that the petitioners are the encroachers of the Government land, but the respondents failed to frle land encroachment proceedings against the petitioners in their counter.

¶32

It clearly shows that the dispute is with regard to boundaries of the Sy.Nos.69 ancl 69/ l. If the respondents rvant to take action against the petitioners for encroaching the land in Sy.No.69/1, they have ro conducr survey in Sy.Nos.69 and.69/L in the presence of the petirioners_ After conducting survey, if the petitioners encroached the Government Iand in Sy.No.69/ l, the respondent authorities are ar libcrty to take appropriate steps including ialC encroachment proceedings under Telangana Land Encroachment Act. I 905.

¶33

Moreover, the respondent. authorities not frled any document shou,ing sen,ice o[ notice on the petitioners under the Telalgana Larrd Encroachment Act, I 905 for evicting them from the Government Land. In vierv of the same, without following due process of law, the respondents have no right to evict the petitioners from the suit schedule propert,..

¶34

,,

¶35

4

¶36

[n view of the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities no to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' plot No.36O/2 z dmeasuring 130 Sq. Yards each in Sy.No.69 situated at I tryapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, u'ith rut following due procedure of law.

¶37

However, this order cannot preclude thr respondents to conduct survey in presence of the petitioners for ascertaining the land in Sy.Nos.69 and 69 / | situated at I tivapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. \fter conducting survey, if the petitioners were encroached the Go..'e r rment Land, the respondents afe at liberty to take appropriatc sto )s to cvict them from the Government landunder the Telangana La I 1 Encroachment Act, 19O5. No order as to costs.

¶38