Desineni Sri Lakshmi v. 1. The State of Telangana

Rl/o Avantipuram, firliryalaguda lt/andal, Nalgonda District.

7. Moti Venkataiah, S/o Mutti Lingam, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, Rl/o Avantipuram, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District 8- Nindhanapu Venkataiah, S/o Kotappa, Aged about 43 years, Occ Business, R/o Avantipuram, Ivli ryalaguda [Vla nda l, Nalgo nda District

9. Batika Venkataiah, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged about 45 years, Occ Business, Rl/o Avantipuram, IVliryalaguda lVandal, Nalgonda District.

10. Pelluri Venkataiah, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, Ri/o Avantipuram, Miryalaguda tVlandal, Nalgonda District Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ..,RESPONDENTS of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in interfering into the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.'1 .20 gts in Sy.No.628/6 which is situated at Alagadapa Re:venue Village, Miryalaguda I\/andal, Nalgonda District by colluding with the respondent No.5 to '10 and threatening to the petitioner to handover the lanc of the petitioner to the respondent No.5 to 10 by illegally, to establish the Amtredkar Community Hall on the land of the petitioner, without following the due process of law, is highly illegal, arbitrary. unconstitutional and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-,4 ol the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 4th respondent Not to interfere into the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1 .20 gts in Sy.No.628l€ which is situated at Alagadapa Revenue Village, Miryalaguda [/andal, Nalgondtr District by colluding with the respondent No.5 to 10 and threatening the petitioner to handover the land of the petitioner to the respondent No.5 to 10 by illegally, to establish the Ambedkar Community Hall on the land of the petitioner without following the due process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition unCer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file,i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent Not to interfere into the land of the petittoner to an extent of Ac.1 .2O gts in Sy.No.628/6 which is situated at .Abgadapa Revenue village t\iliryalaguda lvlandel, Nalgonda District by colluding with the respondent No.5 to 10 and thr:atening the petitioner to handover the land of the petitioner to the respondent No.5 to 10 by illegally, to establish the Ambedkar Community Hall on the land of the, petitioner without following the due process of law pending disposal of the wril petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Rr:spondent No.1 to 4: SRI SANDEEP GOUD, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 10: SRI S.SURENDER REDDY The Court made ttre following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.1253 of 2O2l ORDER: This Writ Petition is illed with the following prayer:- "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in interfering into the land of the petitioner to an extent ofAc.1.20 guntas in Sy.No. 628/6 which is situated at Alagadapa Revenue Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District by colluding with respondent Nos.5 to 10 and threatening to the petitioner to handover the land of the petitioner to respondent Nos. 5 to 1O by illegally to establish the Ambedkar Community Hall on the land of the petitioner without following the due process of law is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona-l and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 1a, 19 (1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent No.4 not to interfere into the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No. 628/6 *hi.n i" situated at Alagadapa Revenue Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District by colluding with respondent Nos.S to 10 and threatening to the petitioner to handover the land of the petitioner to respondent Nos. 5 to 10 by illegally to establish the Ambedkar Community HalI on the land of the petitioner without following the due process of law. - ." _

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sandeep Goud, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Fi 2 EVV, J Wp t253 2021 ! S.Surender Recldy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 1i).

3. Brie - facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.2O guntas in Sy. No. 628 I 6, situated at Alagadapa Revenue Village, Miryalagurla Mandal, Nalgonda District, which rv:rs assigned to her uide Patta Certificate No.A4/1685/93, dated 10.05.1993 and after collecting the necessary charges, the said land u,as mutated in her name and the revenue authoritit--s also issued pattadar tr,assbook No.312231 and title deed Nr,r.312231 uide Khata No.'279 in her favour and since then,- she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. The grievance rf the petitioner is that the official respondents, in collusion v,ith the unofficial respondents, have made an attempt to constru()t Ambedkar Community Hal1 in the sultject land and thereby, trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The written instructions issued by the Tal'Lsildar, which were placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, 'vould show that the total extent of Sy.No.628 is 3 EW, J Wp 1253 2021 Acs.90.04 guntas and the same is classified as Bancharai, covered with small rocks ald hillock. The petitioner's husband worked as an employee at Nizam Sugar Factory, Avanthipuram upto 1992. After closure of the said sugar factory, acting on the petitioner's application, she was assigned the subject land and she had cultivated the same for some time by raising red gram crop. Thereafter, she went to Hyderabad for their livelihood and kept the land fallow. During the year, 2012, some of the residents, who belong to Beda Budigejangam (SC) of Avanthipuram, H/o. Allagadapa, have requested to allot house sites in the same land as the said land is kept fallow, which is suitable for house sites. The instructions further reveaied that without verifying the revenue records and withou\ conducting survey, the revenue authorities have issued passbook in favour of the petitioner even though she is not in possession of the same and during February, 2020. some of the viliagers of Avanthipuram H/o. Alagadapa, have approached the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Miryalaguda, stating that some persons have occupied the Government land which is situated in Sy.No.628 by showing illegal patta certiftcates, and therefore, requested to survey the entire land in Sy.No.628. Acting on the said rI..1 4 EVV, J Wp 1253 2021 \ represent€.tion, the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer i. e. , respondent No.3 dire,:ted rcspondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry and submit a rletailed report. The survey, which was conducted by the Mande .l Surveyor in the month of August, 2O2O and also the report of -he Giridwar, establish that the petitioner is not in possessior of the land, which was assigned to hr:r in the year, 1993 and hence, the name of the petitioner was deleted from online pahani in Dharani Portal and the possession of the land, which was; vacant, was handed over to the Mandal parishad Developme nt Officer, Miryalaguda, for public purpose i.e., pa1le Prakruthi'/anam at Avanthipuram Gram panchayat.

5. Sri Si.Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents, would submit that the petitioner is not in possessron of the subject land and the reventie authorities, without verifl,ing the revenue records and without conducting survey patladar passbook and title deed have issue'd in favour of the petitior.er.

6. Havitrg considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court, r,l'irhout making any observations on the merits and de-merits of the matter, 5 EVV, J Wp 1253 2021 deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing both the parties to make an appropriate application before respondent No.4 claiming their rights over the subjcct land, in which event, respondent No.4 is directed to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders strictiy in accordance with lau,. 7 . With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' To, SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, gecretariat Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telagana. Building,

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, n The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda Division, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District The Tahsildar, Miryalaguda [V1andal, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Drstrict. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI S.SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 4 5 6 7 B BSR GJP / HIGH COURT DATED: 0110912025 '.1r: =-. 19 5[P 2U5 \..' . \--. , -. 'i::' _ .r::__, ' .i ,l' ':'' .i' ORDER WP.No.12l;3 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT I3OSTS \ tt,! *: