A. Raghavender Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the reports submitted by the Respondent No.3 vide No.B/1463/2019 dated 06-07-2019 as well as lhe Respondent No.4 vide NoB2/150212019 dated 02-08-2019 for cancellation of Assignment Pattas issued in favour of the unoffrcial Respondents over the Government land in Sy.No.667 for extent of Ac.04-04gts, situated at Kothur Village, Dhamaram I\,4andal, Peddapally District, Telangana State. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SMT T.SWETCHA, AGP, REP. FOR GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: SRI N.HARI PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL UIRIT PETITION No.1O54 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not cancelling the assignment pattas issued in favour of the unofficial respondents over Government land in Sy- No. 667, measuring an extent of Acs. 4.O4 guntas, situated at Kothur Viltage, Dharmaram Mandal, Peddapally District, despite recommendations from the 3'd respondent vide No. Bl1463 l2ol9, dated 06.07.2019, and the 4th respondent vide No. 92ll5O2l2019, dated 02.O8.2O19, for cancellation of the assignment pattas, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice; and consequently, to direct the official respondents to cancel the assignment pattas issued in favour of the unofficial respondents over the said Government land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 13.38 guntas in Sy. No. 669, situated Pagc 2 of 10 XFffig"x \, - at Kothur Village, Dharmaram Mandai, Peddapally District, zrnd has been cultivating the said land for a long time. The land in Sy. No. 667, winich is adjacent to the petitioner's land in Sy. No. 669, is Government land covered with boulders and hill rocks ancl is not suitable for cultivation. However, pattas were issued by the Government in favour of unofficial respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in respect of Sy. No. 667

3. He submits that aithough the Government issued assignment pattas, the same were not approved by the Assignment Committee. Since the petitioner's land is adjacent 1,o the Government land 1n Sy. No. 667, the unoflrcial respondents 5 to 7, under a false impression, are making baseless claims over the petitioner's iand in Sy. No. 669 and are causing disturbance to his cultivation.

4. He further submits that the petitioner submitted. representations to the 3.a and 4,t respondents, pursuant to which the 3.d respondent conducted a survey and fixed boundaries. Yet, the unofficial respondents continue to harass the petitioner. The 3'd respondent also lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Dharmaram, on 12.O4.2016. He contends that the assignment pattas issued in favour of the unofficial respondents are not in accordance with law, AS they were not approved by the Assignment Committee

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tahsildar, Dharmaram Mandal (3'd respondent herein), based on the instructions of the 4th respondent/Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Peddapally, dated 02.07.2019, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report stating that Sy. No. 667 of Kothur Village comprises a total extent of Acs. 84.19 guntas of Government land. Out of this, 22 farmers have registered for al extent of Acs. 24.15 guntas. The remaining land, i.e., Acs. 69.15 guntas, consists of hills and large stones, making it unfit for cultivation. Pagc J of l0 Xt=.-,,* \ -

6. The 5rh respondent, Pullakolla Kanakamma, has registered her name for an extent of Ac. 1.34 guntas under Khata No. 1497, though no file number is availabie; however, her name is reflected in the Pahani Similarly, the 6th respondent, Pullakolla Yellaiah, has registered for Ac. O.20 guntas under Kheita No. 1212, and the 7h respondent, Pullakolla Nlallaiah, has registered lor Ac. O.30 guntas under Khata No. 1652 Horvever, there is no corresponding registration in the Assignmcnt Committee Register. It is further submitted that respondents 5 to 7 are cultivating only about Ac

1.00 of 1and, while the remaining iand 1S roc\r and uncultivable. As per the official record, the extent of Acs.

4.04 guntas of Government land is designated as Laoni Patta land, but there is no evidence of approval from the Assignment Committee.

7. He also submits that respondents 5 to 7, under the mistaken belief that a portion of the petitioner,s 1ancl is Government 1and, have encroached upon the petitioner,s .rry Page 5 of l0 land in Sy. No. 669 and causing law and order lSSUCS.

8. It is further stated that when the Assistant Director, Land Measurements, Karimnagar, conducting a survey in the presence of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Peddapally, the Tahsildar, Dharmaram, and the Station House Officer, Dharmaram, the 7tt' respondent, Puliakolla Mallaiah, consumed insecticide in an attempt to obstruct the ofhcial proceedings. Therefore, learned counsel prays that appropriate action be taken to cancel the registrations and issuance of passbooks reflecting the Government land in Sy. No. 667 to an extent of Acs.

4.04 guntas, situated in the suburbs of Kothur Village, Dharmaram Mandal, as Laoni Patta land, especially since the land allotted to the unofhcial respondents is not suitable for cultivation

9. Learned counsel further submits that, based on the report of the 3'd respondent/Tahsildar, the 4th @ respondent/ Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Peddapalli, vlde proceeding,s No. 82 I 1502 / 2Ot9 , dated 02.OB .2OIg , submitted a report to the 2"d respondent, requesting cancellation of the Pattadar Passbooks issued to respondents 5 to 7 in respect of land to an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas in S1,. No. 667, which were obtained in violation of Section 166(1)(b) of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.

10. Smt. T. Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pieader representing the learned Government pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, upon instructions, submits that a detailed enquiry was condlrcted by the 3.d respondent vide proceedings dated

06.07.2019, and the same was forwarded to the 4th respondent. Upon conslderation of the report submitted by the ll.d respondent, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings No. 82 11502 l2Ol9, dated 02.OB.2Otg, recommended to the 2nd respondent that the land to an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas in Sy. No. 667, situated at Kothur Village, Dharmaram Mandal, is recorded as l ; I I I I i I ; I I , I ! l Pagc 7 ol I0 Laoni Patta land in the revenue records, and that the pattas were issued without proper verification of the revenue record entries, despite the fact that the land is not cultivable. Accordingly, the 4Lh respondent recommended cancellation of the Pattadar Passbooks, which were issued in violation of Section 166(1)(b) of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. 1 1. She further submits that, based on the pattas granted in favour of the unofhciai respondents, they are creating disturbance and interference in the petitioner's land. When the 3'd respondent, Assistant Director, Survey and Records, Karimnagar, was measuring and fixing boundaries on the ground, in the presence of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Peddapalli, and the Station House Officer, Dharmaram, the 7th respondent created hurdles in the official proceedings, and a complaint was lodged against him on 12.04.2016 with the SHO, Dharmaram Mandal.

72. She also submits that, based on the report of the

3.d respondent, the 4th respondent submitted the matter to the 2"d respondent, and the same is currently pending with the 2ud respondent lor further action

13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents 5 to 7 submits that respondents 5 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the land recorded in their favour in the revenue records. and that they have been issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds. He further submits that the non-approval of the assignment by the Assignment Committee is of no consequence.

14. He submits that the allegation of interference by the unofficial respondents with respect to the petitioner's iand in Sy. No. 669 is false and incorrect, and that the unofficial respondents have never obstmctecl the duties of the ofhcia_l respondents while conducting the survey. He therefore seeks dismissal of the writ pertition i t Page 9 oI l0

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents 5 to 7, and upon pemsal of the material placed on record, this Court observes that the 3rd respondent, vide letter No. Bl1463 12O19, dated

06.O7.2019, submitted a report to the 4th respondent,, who in turn lorwarded the same to the 2'd respondent vide proceedings No.B2 I l5O2l2Ol9, dated 02.08.2019 and the matter is stitl pending without any further action by the 2'd respondent.

16. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2"d respondent to cause an enquiry into the matter by issuing notices to the petitioner, unofficial respondents 5 to 7, and all other concerned parties, and to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, AS expeditiously AS possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pase 10 ol- l0 --S.hAjtsr '

17. Ti1l such time, both parties are directed to maintaln status quo obtaining as on the date of this

18. With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. There sha1l be no order as to costs. As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S A K. HAVANI SWAMY NT REGISTRAR i To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secr{ta of Telanqana. CTION OFFICER \ It at, Hyderabad, State

2. The District Collector, Peddapalli District. 3. The Tahsildar, Dharmaram lr,4andal, Peddapalli District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District_ 5. One CC to SRI IV.A.K.MUKHEED, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI N.HARI PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI B- Two CD Colties BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 ORDER WP.No.1054 of 2021 gI ,*. C 20 $P mffi 1l);: ./ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS i \