A. Shankar Vs The District Collector

2 (hajaTolfiq Ahmed Ansari,-S/o,.(hgja Ahmed Ansari, Aged about 64 years, O^cc: Ex-Serviceman, H,No.9-1-112116, Babunagar, Langalrhouse, HyOeiaOaAi 08.

¶10

3 [ V^-Pgbh.qkar Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Ex-Serviceman, Aged about 62 years, plot No.63, Vanitha Enclave, Thirumalgherry, Secunderabid-1S.

¶11

9.V.. Rao C[guda.ry, S/o. Sitaram Sing, Aged about 59 years, Occ: ExServiceman, Plot No.57, Kalyanpuri Gard-en, Vapral post, Seiundeiabad.

¶12

B. Ganga [ed.d.y, _S{o._Govind Reddy, Aged about 82 years, Occ: ExServiceman Flat No.25, Thirumala Home, Boinepally, Secund-erabad.

¶13

p. lamesh, S/o. Shivaram, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Ex-Serviceman plot No. 75, H. No. 1 -24-39 1, Lothukuhta, Secunderlbad- 1 5.

¶14

Gaddirala Nayu.raiah, .S/o. Govindaiah, Aged about 57 years, Occ: ExServiceman H.No.1-1-101/1 , Belide Old Kappra, Municipal'Office Sai priya Nagar, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distriit.

¶15

Thakala Sri Hari_Rao, S/o. T. Koteswar Rao, Ex-serviceman, Rep.by its GpA Mr. R. Ne{son, S/o. Late A. Ratna Raj, Aged about 60 years,'Oc6: private Employee,. Plot No.4, Brindawan Colony,^-Dr. A.S. Rao'Nagar, ECIL post, Hyderabad-62.

¶16

M. Dhanamjayagu, S/o. M. Sheshaiah, Occ: Ex-Serviceman, Aged about 63 ye^ars, Occ: Business, Cio. Plot No.4, Brindawan Colony, Dr. A.S-. Rao Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-62.

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

1 . The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶20

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

The Greater Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, HMDA., Rep. by its Estate Officer Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition und e^- \rticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stale(i in the affidavit filed therewith, the Higr^(lourt may be pleased to issue a r ,r rder, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamr"rs,^,leclaring the action of the 3rd respondent in in:erfering in the petitioners Agricr.lltural P,ctivities of their respective lands situatt:rd in Jawahar Nagar Village, Sharre erpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., is illegal arbitrary and unjust and conseq r-rerrr:ly rlirect the 3'd respondent not to interfere in the petitioners Agricultural Activitie.;^jf their respective lands situated in Sy.Nos. 712, 1O37 and 1040, 114, 151 , lilF 121,,138, 115, 149, in Jawahar Nagar Vrllagr:, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Redriv Dir;t.

¶24

l.A.NQ; 1 OF 2009(h/t,MP. NO: 8364 OF 2009)

¶25

Petition under S ect.ion 151 CPC praying that in the circumst:rnces stated in the affidavit filed^,n sLroport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents arrrl its; officials not to interfere the petitio,rer's Agricultural Activities in their res re ctive lands situated in Sy.Nos. 712, 1037 tl 1140, 114, 151 , 12P, 12P, 138, 11ij, 149 of Jawahar Nagar Village, Shameerpet lr.4andal, Ranga Reddy Dist., pendirc c isposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitir:ne'rs: SRI G. RAVI MOHAN

¶27

Counsel for the ResSxrnclents No.I & 2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Responclent No.3: SRI Y. RAMA RAO, S.C. FOFI HMDA

¶29

The Court made the ''ollowing: ORDER

¶30

!

¶31

i

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.6401 of 2009

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present writ petition is hled declare the action of respondents in causing their interference with petitioners peaceful possession and enjo5rment of the lands in Sy.Nos.712, LO37, IO4O, 114, 151, 12P, r2P, 138, 115, 149, situated at Malkaram Village, Jawaharnagar, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrar5r and consequently direct respondents not to dispossess or interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession.

¶35

,

¶36

It is submitted that petitioners are the exserviceman and a member of Jawaharnagar Land Colonization Cooperative Society. The Government has allotted Ac.S-OO gts., of land to the each of the petitioners under ex-serrricemen quota. Petitioners narnes were a-lso recorded in the pahani pathrikas and they are in peaceful possession of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that thereafter, petitioners have developed the land by levelling it to suit for cultivation and

¶37

\

¶38

2

¶39

the societ,, has regula-rized^{thepossessior ofthe} petitioners.^rVh ile things stood^{thus, the respondeat No'3} who is un--<nr:ected with the^{present writ peliti'rn was} frequentll,^:r pp:-oaching the^{petitionersand tlrreratening} them to h^zr tdrtver the^{possessionof the subje':t land} without an'r tol.ice. Questioning the^{same,the presr:nt writ} petition,5fi^r:d.

¶40

TIr:; Court on 26.03.2009 has^{granted rr.n interim} order, whicL, is as follows:

¶41

"The :^{t ttit;:oners} state that tleir^{cases are pe.nding} for considerat t, , tn tertns of tle^judgment oJ this,^{()ourt in} W.P.No.il9t1? oJ 1999 and batctt- It is also stated tl'nt^theg are still in I)() ssession. In the said batch of urit^petitio ns, fhis Court dire,:,r'7 t\at pending consideration of the appris611i6ng filed^{bg '.h.e , x-seruicemen, status quo a.s regards por"session} shal| b<t rr 'intained. In that uieut of the matt.er, the respondent; erc directed not to interfere with the pol',session and enjotlr tlt of tlrc petitioner ouer the land a.ncl. at tle same tirnl., ' rc petitioner shall not alter or otherutis,z create third panttl^,i lhts ouer tle said larud.'

¶42

4 . L': i rn ed counsel for the petitioners drawn

¶43

attention c[ :his Court to copies of distribution of land to the petition r'^-s.

¶44

3

¶45

No counter alfidavit has been frled by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶46

In that view of the matter, since interim order has already been passed staying the dispossession and no ,counter alhdavit has been frled by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 till date, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent authorities not to interfere with the subject larrd of the petitioners without following due process of law.

¶47