M. Laxman Nayak v. legitimate expectation and consequently direct the

Judgment

1. M. Srinivaslu, S/o. Rekya Nayak, Age 30 years, 2. K. Rekya Nayak, S/o. Thopya Nayak, Age 45 years, J- K. Nanaya Nayak, S/o. Hirya Nayak, Age 45 years, 4. K. Shiva Raj, Wo. Kistya Nayak, Age 26 years, 5. K. Subhas, S/o. Singya Nayak, Age 40 years, b. K. Deepla Nayak, S/o. Bhadya Nayak, Age 40 years, 7. t. K. Ramesh, Wo. Chetra Nayak, Age 38 years o K. Neelya Nayak, S/o. Singhya Nayak, Age 30 years, K. Lalya Nayak, S/o. Singhya Nayak, Age 29 years, 10 K. Suresh Nayak, S/o. Mankiya Nayak, Age 29 years, 11. K. Pentamma, S/o. Gopal Nayak, Age 27 years, 12. K. Ramu, S/o Sevya Nayak, Age 50 years, 13. K. Gangya Nayak, S/o. Singhya Nayak, Age 50 years 14. K. Dharma Nayak,, S/o. Tikya Nayak, Age 60 years 15. K. Bhaskar, S/o. Gobya Nayak, Age 30 years, 16. K. Ramesh Nayak, S/o. Sevya Nayak, Age 30 years, 17. K. Vinod, S/o Reddya Nayak, Age 28 years, 18. P. Bucchya Nayak, S/o. Gobrya Nayak, Age 35 years, 19. K. Surendar, S/o. Gangya Nayak, Age 40 years, 20. J. Ramdas, S/o. Bhadya Nayak, Age 35 years, 21. 22.K.feja Nayak, S/o. Vashya Nayak, Age 25 years, 23. K. Shankar Nayak, S/o. Chetrya Nayak, Age 45 years, 24.K. Santhosh, S/o. Beekya Nayak, Age 52 years, 25.M. Srinu, S/o. Chinna Nayak, Age 26 years, 26.K. Buchhar, S/o. Ukya Nayak, Age 30 years, 27. M. Dasharath, S/o. Echya Nayak, Age 48 years 28.J. Bhadriah Nayak, S/o. Ram Singh Nayak, Age 50 years, 29.K. Ramulu, S/o. Gogiya Nayak, Age 45 years 30. K. Mounika, Wo. Naresh, Age 28 years, 3l.Katravath Shankar, S/o. Chennya Nayak, Age 36 years 32. Katravath Hanumanthu, S/o. Ukya Nayak, Age 38 years, 33. Katravath Mahendar, S/o. Bhadya Nayak, Age 45 years 34.Ha'1ya Nayak, S/o. Kandya Nayak, Age 34 years 35.K.Raju, S/o. Ukya Nayak, Age 50 years, 36. K. Manneamma, Wo. Bheemla Nayak, Age 45 years, 37. K. Govindu, S/o Laskar Nayak, Age 45 years, 38.S. Venkat Nayak, S/o. Ramulu, Age 30 years, 39. K. Nitya Nayak, S/o. Chandrya Nayak, Age 45 years, I I I I

40.T. Sailu, S/o. Kistappa, Age 42 years. Petitioners 1-35 are residents of Dori Thanda village and Petitioners 36 to 40 are residents of Palgu thanda, habitation of Dorri Thanda panchayat, Hanwada mandal, Mahabubnagar District, having agriculture wage work as their occupation AND ...PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Nampally Station Road, Opp. Annapurna Hotel, Abids, Hyderabad 3. DiskictCollector, MahabubnagarDistrict, Mahabubnagar 4. Revenue Divisional Ofiicer, Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar 5. Mandal Tahsildar, Hanwada mandal, Hanwada, Mahabubnagar District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities on the Representations of the petitioners for assignment of land out of around 633 acres of vacant government land in Sy.No.718 of Hanwada revenue for agriculture activities, despite there being clear directions from the government on this aspect, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation and consequently direct the respondents 03 to 05 to take all necessary steps as per the prevailing rules in force including Memo No.44677lAsn.POT 212007-1, dl 24.09.2007 and CCLA'S Ret.No.B2127l2O07 dt.06.10.2007 for assignment of lands out of the presently unused and vacant government and in Sy.No.7'l8 of Hanwada revenue village and mandal to the Petitioners herein. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the 03rd respondent to act upon the representations of the petitioners d1.09.08.2023 and the endorsement of the 05th respondent d1.05.08.2023 in accordance with prevailing rules and regulations.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH.RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASXAR REDDY trrRIT PETITION No.846 of 2O25 ORDER: It is stated that the petitioners are the landless poor persons and belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community and they are working as agricultural coolies/labour. It is further stated that the petitioners have made representations requesting the respondent authorities to allot/ assign the agricultural land to enable them to eke out their livelihood. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after receiving the said representations, the respondent authorities are not considering the same.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that since the petitioners are not having any land, it is the duty and obligation on the part of the State under the Directive Frinciples of State Policy to provide livelihood more particularly to the persons hail from below poverty line and keeping in view of the said object, various guidelines have been 2 CVB& J wp 836_2025 issued by the Government as per tJre provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and also the policy enunciated in G.O.Ms.N o.1406, dated 25.07.1958. Learned counsel further submits that the unoccupied lands vested in the State as per the provisions of the Telaagana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 are meant for assignment to the landless poorr persons in terms of the policy guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3-the District Collector, duly taking into consideration of the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioners for allotment of various extents of land, has addressed a letter No. Rev/ E 1 / 0OO3 / 2022 -E-23883, dated 23.O4.2024, identiffing an extent of Ac.633.96 cents as land belonging to the Revenue Department after excluding the extent fell under the Reserve Forest Area situated in Sy.No.718.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents has submitted that as per Khasra Pahani 1954-55, the land in Sy.No.718 consisting of total extent of Acs.3174.30 guntas is classified as Mahasura (Forest Land) situated within the limits of Hanswada Village and Mandal and since the said extent of lald comes under the Reserve Forest 3 CVBR, J Wp_836 2025 Area belonging to the Forest Department, the same cannot be assigned until and unless the land is de-reserved by the competeit authorities as per law.

5. In view of the above submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to examine the entitlement of the petitioners for allotment/assigtrment of the land available in Hanwada Village and if the petitioners are eligible for considering their cases strictly in accordance with the policy guidelines which are in force as on date, pass appropriate orders on the representations, dated Og.OB.2O24 and communicate the decision thereon to them within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. There sha-Il be no order as to costs. I 7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petiilons pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To //TRUE COPYII SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( SECTION OFFICER 1 2 The Principal secretary, Revenue Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, secretariat Burlcltngs, Hyderabad, State of Telanqana. Chief Commissioner of Land Ad.minisiration, Telangana State, Nampally Station Road, Opp. Annapurna Hotel, Abids, Hyde6bad (3.\t

6. 7.

8. PSK. PSK. District Collector, Mahabubnaqar District. Mahabubnaoar Revenue Divisional Officer, Mihabubnajar Division, triihabubnagar Mand!l Tahsildar, Hanwada.mandal, Ha-nwada, Mahabubnagar D'istrict One CC to SRI CH.RAVI KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT), Flish Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies _t- HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 ORDER WP.No.846 o12025 f ( i.te T r 1 q f o o tl I[\\ Nh () 3 i t: n A1 Cr DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS