Mohammed Qutbuddin v. State of Telangana

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : SRI H.RAKESH KUMAF, AGp on behalf of GP REVENUE SRI K.MIJ TALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRt R.LAXMIKANTH REDD\., \Gp on behalf of GP FOR HOME SRI MAHEST RAJE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3O52 of 2O2O ORDER: The prescnt u'rit pctition is filed by thc pctitioner under Articlt: 226 <tt the Constitution ol India, seeking issuancc ol a writ, ordcr, or direction, morc particularly one in the nature o[ writ of mandamus, declaring the action of thc respondcnts and Lhelr subordinatcs in trying to disposscss thc pctitioncr by u'ury of interfering with his peaceful possession zrncl r'njoylnetlt ovcr the Iand bearing open plot Nos 264 & 265, total aclnrcasurit'tg 20O Sq.Yards undcr Sy.No.212, situated zrt Arsapalll' Shivar, Nizanttrllad Mandal and District, without follor'r ing due proccclure contcmplated under law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconslituLionarl, violation of principlcs of natural justice and also in violation of Artrclcs 14. I I & 300 A of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently clircct the respondents not to interfere u,ith peaceful possession and err.;oyment of the petitioner over the subject property without [ollow'irtg the proccdure contemplated undcr law'

2. Heard Sri Mohd.Moin Ahmcd Quadri, learned counsel lor the petitioner, Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Plcader appearlng on behalf of Government Pleader for Revenue Sri ^K"Aduralidhar ReddY and Sri Laxmikanth, learned Pagc 2 of5 Assistant (ioverrlnrent Pleader appearing on bclr Llf of the learned Government l'leadcr for Home Sri Mahcsh l?aje.

3. Thc brit:I'I:rcts ol the c:rse, as can bc s( ( 1r frorn tht' 1>ctition afhdavit, are thal the petitioner is tl.rc lau'ful orvr:t ancl possessor ol open plot Nos.26.4 &, 265, total admeasunng .2 ) ) Sq.Yards, under Sy.No.212, situatcd at Arsapallv Shivar, Nizar r riract Mandal and Districl having ar:quircd thc samc tr.r' virtue o[ gtstered sale deed Nos.5O7 & 5O8 of 2020 both clatcd 10,01.2020 ol S, lt ), \izan.r:rbad :urd sir-rce the datc of 1;urchase thc peLiLirirrer arncl 1;rrc r ro thc purchase of thc property b1. the pctitioner, his prcdeccssors ir. rtle arc in peaceful possession zrnd t'njoyme nt of the same vi-ithorr thcre bcrng any interruption lrorn any corner and b1, pay'ine t hc taxes to the Govcrnmcnt. (a) 1'he pctitioncr [urthcr st:rtcs that on I r) .)2.2020, olficials ol the 3.,1 respondcnt, rvith policc assistancc, t ) rratencd him and attempted to dispossess hirn from the subject 1r rd, obstruc:ting his peaceful possession and enjoyment. This action lr-r ; allegcdlt, based on complaints from third partics seeking [o usurp t - ) propcrty s.ith the aid of Government officials. 'lhe rcspondents acl c( ,r ithout issuing any prior notice or following due process of lar.r,. Pagc 3 of5 (b) Learncd counscI for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fde purchaser of the subject land, having acquired it througl-r a scries of registcrcd sale dceds from the original owners. The land originally belongccl to Sudha Bai Deshmukh W/o..Jagapath Rao Deshmukh, r,r,ho rvas the pattadar and possessor of land under Sy.No.212 of Arsapally Villzrge. Hcr name was duly mutaled in all relevant re\renue records, and shc u'as issucd a pattadar passbook and title deed. Shc subseqtre ntly obLained layout permission from the competenl authority and cotlverted the land into plots. One such plot was sold via registered sale dccd daLed 20 O7.20O2 to the vendor's vendor of the petitioner, u'ho later sold it to the petitioner's vendor through registcrcd sale deed No.11216 of 2OO4, dated.27.72'2OO4 The petitioncr thereafter acquired the ptots, and the names of all successive owners rvere duh' recorded in the revenue records, with corresponding pattadar passbooks and titlc deeds issued. It is further contended by learned counscl for the petitioner that the subject land is purely a patta land and number of houses $'ere constructed over thc land in the subject survey number and somc land grabbers arc trying to grab the vacant lands covered in the said survey number. (.) In light of the above, learned counsel contends that the attempt by responden t officials to dispossess the petitioner without issuing notice, following due procedure, or affording an opportrrnity of t'agc J of 5 hearing, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of rhc 1,. incioles o[ natural justice, as wcl1 as Arlicles 14, 21, and 300 A of Irc t\rnsrit.ution o[ Indiar. It is there[rrrc urged thal thc rcspondcnts ),] r(.strained front undertaking such cocrcive and unlalvful rr<:ti,t I bv invoking the jurisdictir>n of this FIon'ble Court undcr Article 226 r 'th< Constitution_

4. Per contra, thc lcarned Assistant (i, ) (.rIlntent ])leadcrs, appearing on behalf of the learncd Clovcrnmenl . r adcr lor Revenue and the learned (ior,,ernment Plcader for Honrr:. ( ontCnded that the pral'er o[ the petitioner is bascd on a complct<' r >.orri cl]ti{,n, as no action has bcen conte mplated to disposscss tho p( 1 t ronor. lt is further submitted th:11 none of the olficials of the rcspondc departmcnts have visitcd the sile or removed the lencing o[ thc subje l.rncl. Thc1. further contend that the petitioner, $,i[h an intention to t:- 1 r' shclLcr under the guisc of an order lrom this Court to legalizc his , il .' ovt:r lhc propert]. and to garn()r sympathy, has approached this ( r rrrt u,ith lalse and bascless allegations. Stating thus, thcy scek disnr ssal o[ rhc present u,rit petition-

5. This Court, having heard the respec. ,,c learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on rcc ) rl, rl.ithout making any observations on the aspect of title or possr:ss.i rn o[ lhe petitioner over the schedule property, directs the responde I s to act strictly in accordance^ql.ith law, if so warranted, and to e I: s Lrre rhat :rny steps .i: ,/ Pagc 5 of5 taken are within the frameu,ork of due process. It is further made clear that the respondents shall refrain lrom adopting any coercive or high- handed measures against the petitior-rer, ancl anl,action, if necessary, shall be preceded by due notice and opportuni[z to the petitioner to put forth his case, in order to safeguard the principles of natural justice.

6. With thc above observatior-rs, this \.rit petition is disposed No costs. lnterlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed \ To, 1 //TRUE COPYi/ SD/-G. JYOTHI ISTANT RE SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, St Secretariat, Hyderabad. f Telangana,

2. The District Collector, Nizamabad District, at Nizamabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Nizamabad North Mandal. Nizamabad District. 4- The Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad, Nrzamabad District, 5. The Station House Officer, P.S.Nizamabad Vl-Town, Nizamabad District 6. One CC to SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADR|, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies. BSK BS {"r'a' t. 0 I HIGH COURT DATED:1210812025 ORDER WP"No.3052 of 2020 1 L tffi DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A,f- 6lta