1 . Chiluveru Laxminarayana v. 1. The State of Telangana

6. Puppala Srinivas, S/o. Rajaiah' Hindu, aged . about 38 vears' Occ Upa- 'il-F;bp;i""t''"oar'"gaon Viltige and Mandal' Sarpanch, Rrio. H. ilil. Adilabad District.

7..Elka Mohan, S/o. Chinnaiah, aged lqoyt.48 years' R/o' H'No' 5-26' Dit.gaon viliage and Mardal, Adilabad District' 8. K. Nageswara Gor.rd, S/o- Rayamallu, Hindu' aged about 40 Years' R/o' H'h{o' " ild, 6;;6n Vitidge and Mandal, Adilabad District' RR 6 to 8 are impleaded as per C'O' dt' 21J12024 in l'A' No' 3/2015 (wP.M.P.No. 29510/201 5). 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 ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particurarry o,e in the nature of writ of Mandanrtrs decraring the impugned order in proceedings No_B/g8/2015 dated 13-5-2o1ti issued by the 4th respondent is iflegar, arbitrar'7, contrary to [aw, unreasonable and in gross vioration of principres of.naturar justice, and without jurisdiction and violative of the Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of - the constitution of lndia and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners construction of the houses bearing No.2-33, 2-3311, 2-3312 in sy.Nc'.237 of Dahegaon viflage such other order c,r orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. I.A. NO:2OF 201 MP. NO: 2 1144 0F 20151 Petition under Section lsl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec{ in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the impugned order in proceedings No.B/8g/2015 datecr 13-5-2015 issuecl by the 4th respondent, pending disposar of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bre court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. LA. NO: 1OF 2o15MWMP. NO: 2979 oF 2015) Between: Department). Secretari-at, Hyderdbad.'

1. The State of Telangana, .Rep. by the principal Secretary, 2. The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad Diskict. 3. The Sub-Cr)ltector, . Asifabad, Adilabad District. 4. The Tahasildar, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilabad District. (Revenue ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. 2 3 Chiluveru Laxminaravana S/o Ratnaiah, age! Sg years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o H.No.2-33, Dahegaon Viilige and n/anoir, IiilaOa6 diitrict pliluv^eg_ Slamalakar, S/o Ratnaiah, aged S l years, Occ Agriculture, F/o H. No. 2-33i 1, Dahegaon viuage a nd Manda[ Aoiraiit -Di.tri"t. 9[il,1y"g Snyarn Prasad, S/o Ratnaiah, aged 46 years, Occ p Agriculture Rl/o 2-33 I 2, D ahegaon vila ge and Mandai, Adif"b;d bi.tri;i: 5 The Gram Panchavat. Dahr Rep. by its F'anchayat Su"r"i'#n ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS village' Dahegaon Mandal' Adilbad District ...RESPONDENTIR'ESPONDENT Petitionundersectionls,lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstaftcesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition. tte High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt 10.07-2015 passed in WP No'16262 of 2015' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.lto4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI G'NARENDER REODY(SC FORGPPS) Counsel for the Respondents No-6to8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOT{'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PEtITION No. L6262 0F 2015 ORDER: This writ petition is fi.led under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to i.ssue a urit, order or a direction more pantianlarlg one in tlat nature of Writ of Mandamus dedaring the impugned ord.er in proceedings No.B/ 88/2O15, dated 13.O5.2O15 issued by tte respondent No.4 i.s i eEal, orbitrary, contrary to latu, unreasonable and in gross uiolation of principles oJ' natural justice, and witLnut jurisdiction and uiolatiue of tLrc Arlicles 14' 21 and 3OO-A of the Constitutton of In<7ia and issue a @nsequential direction directing th.e respondents not to interfere: uith tlv petitioners constiuction of the houses; bearing No.2-33 :2-33/ 1, 2-33/ 2 in S!.No.237 of Dahegoon Vill'zge such other order or orders as thjs Hon'ble Court mag deem fit and proper in tlle cirafi$ta n@s of the case..."

2. Heard. learned eounsel appearing for the petitioners, learned A.ssistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Iearned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. 'l \ 2 sr.J w.p.No. r 6262 of 20is 3. [.earned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners a.re the absolute owners and possessors of Houses bearing Nos.2-33, 2-33/L, 2-33/2 admeasuring 8O square yards each in Sy.No.237 situated at Dahegaon Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. The father of the petitioners has constructed t]le houses in ttre 5rear, 196g in tlle schedule land. Originaly, the land belongs to one Sri Hanumarr prasad ald as per his declaration filed nnder A.p. Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1923, the Land Reforms Tribunal in C.C.No.8/ 316/Z5, d.ated 24.O6.L994 held that due to floods in peddavagu in the year, 196g, tJle villagers of Dahegaon Village occupied the land in Sy.No.237. Out of Ac.2O_15 cents, the land to an extent of Ac. 19-05 cents is declared as Abadi and the remaining Ac'l-,o cents is ,nder possession of the declarant and which is not being under cultivation even before of ttre Act and cannot be treated as aenactment alricultural land under Section 3 (J) of ttre Land Reforms Act, L973. Therefore, the land situated in Sy.No.237 of i I t i i : 3 SK,J w.P.No.162ti2 of 2O15 Dahegaon Village is neither a ceiling surplus lan.d nor a Government land.

4. tearned counsel for the petitioners further submits that ttre petitioners have constructed the houses long back in $;y.No.237 and they are regularly paying house tax to the concerned Gram Panchayat. In view of deteriorating condition of ttre houses, the pefitioners made application to t-l:e Gram Panchayat arrd t}le Gram Panchayat granted permission on 26.01.2A'15 for constructj.on of new houses. When the pelitioners started c,onstruction, the Upa Sarpanch of the said Village has made a petition to. tlle respondent No.3 stating that the petitioners have encroached tJ:e Angadi Bazar and constructed permanent buildings. After conducting enquiry, the respondent No.4 submitted report stating that as per pdharri records for the year 20ll-20l'2, the Sy.No.237 to att extent of Ac.2O-15 cents stands in the name of Hanuman Prasad and \ 4 a (approximately w'p'no'tazaz"rifi{ sy.No.237lA to an e: rtent of Ac. l_2S cents stands patta in the name of Sri Chiluveru Satnarayana and entire land in Sy.No.23Z were covered with residential houses 15O) including MPDO Office, Gram Panchayat Oflice, Angadi Bazar and Veterinary Hospital. 5. Leamed cotrnsel for the petitioners further submits trrat, while it being so, 0re respondent No.4 issued impugned notice uide No.D/g8/2OlS, dated 13.05.20i5 directing the petitioners not to construct new buildings in Sy.No.237 of Dahegaon Village, until further orders. The respondent No.4 without veri$ring the records, only basing on the compraint of trre third parties issued rmpugned notice as the petitioners encroached the Angadi Bazar and. t-lee same is contrar5r to his own report dated l3.O4.2OlS. The larrd is a private patta land but not a Govenrment land. The respondent No.4 has no power and jurisdiction to direct the petitioners not to make any construction. Once the competent authorier 5 s&J W.P.No.162ti2 of 2O15 granted building permission, the respondent No.4 has no jurisdictic,n, unless the petitioners encroacbd' the Governme:nt larld and the learned counsel requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside tJle impugned notice.

6. t earned Assistant Governrnent Pleader for Revenue, basing on the counter alfidavit frled by tJre respondent No.4, submits that tl.e respondent No.4/Tahsillar has submitted a report dated 13.04.2O15 to the respondent No.3/Sub-collector and stated that ttre petitioners have constructecl houses in place of their old houses, which were not in good condition. The villagers have represented to the Joir,rt Collector, Adilabad on the same issue and they are regutarly approaching ttre T.rtrsildar for taking action against the petitioners. Due to avoid Iaw and order problem and due to regular approach of tlre villagers, the Tahsildar, Dahegaon Mandal hasr issued notice uide Ref.No.B/88 l2Ol5, dated 12.O5.2015i to the \ \ i I t I ! ; 6 w.p.No.t6262 or:{;Js petitioners including one Sri Budipelli prakash d.irecting ttrem not to construct new building in their respective encroachment area till further orders, but, the petitioners have encroached the Government Iand and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the land in Sy.No.237 of ttre Dahegaon Village and Mandal belongs to one Sri Hanuman prasad and the family members of the pe&tioners along with others have occupied the schedure land in the year, 1g6g, due to floods irr tlee Peddavagu and constructed houses. Now, ttre petitioners want to construct new buildings in place of old buildings and the respondent No.4 submitted report earlier on L3-O4.2OLS to the respondent No.3 stating that tJ'e land is a private patta land ald there is no encroachment of Government land. 7 SK,J W.P.N0.16262 of 2015

8. But ttre averments in the counter clearly shows ttrat only basing on the representation of tl.e villagers, the respondent No.4 issued impugned notice to tJle petitioners to stop further construction, in spite: of the petitioners obtained building permission from the competent Grarn Panchayat. The respondent No.4 is not disputing the nature of lald and the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal with regard to the suit schedule prropert5r, but, due to the representatiorr of the villagers and to avoid law and ord.er problem, issrred the impugned proceedings to stop the construction of tlte petitioners. The said action of the respondent No.4 is arbitrary and illegal. Unless the petitioners encroach the Government land, tl.e respondents cannot stop tlrc constructior. of the petitioners. 9 The suit schedule property situated in Sy.No.237 is neither a ceiling surphrs l,and nor a Government land, as n31 the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal and I I 1 \ I a (--.. w.p.No.t6%2 q;{i{ also the report submitted by the respondent No.4 on L3.O4.2OLS. In view of the same, the respondent No.4 without any power and jurisdiction has declared tllat the petitioners have encroached the Government land and stopped the construction. The said action is contrar5r to the records and ttre same is liable to be set aside. If the petitioners have encroached the Govemment land, the respondent No.4 can issue notice to tl e petitioners under Land Encroachment Act. 1(). In view of the above hndings, tJlis Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside ttre impugned norice No.B/88/2O15, dated l3.OS.20l5 issued by ttre respondent No.4/Tahsildar. If the petitioners have encroached the Government land, the respondents are at Iiberty to ttre take appropriate action on the petitioners by foilowing due process and pass appropriate orders as per law. \ w.e.xotazaz ,y i{i{ 11. With the above direction, the writ petition is I 9 disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if ,rry, pending shaJ.I stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTA,NT REGISTRAR ,n\ t) !.' CTION OFFICER To, !iecretafl at, Hyderabad. 1 l!:_l11gpql,secretary, (Revenue Department), State of TetanEana, 2.TheDiskictCollector,Adilabad,AdilabadDistrict. 3. The Sub-Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad District. 4. The Tahasildar, Dahegaon Mandal, Ad'ilabad District. 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram panchayat, Dahegaon village, Dahegaon Mandal, Adilbad Distriet.-

6. One CC to SRt P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCI 7. T_w.o CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of T-elangana.

8. One CC to SRt G.NARENDER REDDY, (SC FOR GppS). IOPUCI 9. Two CD Cop,ss. BSK GJP Prte.. -a ,rE S1,t *,.,a \i , a 84 t'iAF. ro5 o t ! E.s PAT c * HIGH COt'RT DATED:0310112025 ORDER WP.No.16262 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o- te1,\ )-S