Bhukya Shashi Rekha v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Arlicle 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 action of the respondents herein in interfering with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment and threatening to the petitioner to dispossess her from her vacant house site to an extent of 600 Sq. Yards bearing Plot Nos. 2 and 3 in Sy.Nos. 406/4, 406/E and 406/EE, situated at Paloncha revenue Village, Paloncha Town and Municipality, Paloncha Mandal, Bandradri Kothagudem District, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonableness, violative of principles of Natural Justice and also violative of Articles 14, 21, 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and issue a consequential direction to the respondents not to 7 I I interferewiththepeacefulpossessionandenioymentofpe.ionersabovesaid land. IA NO: 10F 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No' 2 to 5 not to interfere in : ltitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of her vacant house site to an extr) rt of 600 Sq Yards bearing Plot Nos. 2 and 3 in Sy'Nos' 406/A' 406/E and z l6/EE' situated at paloncha revenue Village, Paloncha Town and Municipali\" Paloncha Mandal' BandradriKothagudemDistrict,vacanthousesite,pendingJsposalofthemain writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU Counsel for the Respondents No"l to 4: SRI H'RA{E-qH KUI! AR' AGP on behalf of dP ior REVENUE SRI K'MURALID {AR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No'5: SC FOR MUNICIPALITIE i The Court made the following: ORDER l, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUGOPAL No. 3462 o 2020 f WRIT PETITION ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India' seeking issuance of a writ' order' or direction, mo're particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus' declaring the action of the respondents herein in interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the vacant house site to an extent of 6OO Sq'Yards bearing PIot Nos'2 and 3 in Sy'Nos'406/A' aO6lE and 4O6]Fir--'' situated at Paloncha revenue village' Polancha Town and Municipality' Polancha Mandal' Bhadradri Kothagudem District (hereinafter referred to as "subject propert/)' and threatentng to dispossess her from the same as illegal' arbitrary' unreasonableness' violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of articles 14' 2l arrd3OoA of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner above said land'

2. Heard Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu' leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar ReddY' I \ \ Page 2 of5

3. The brief facts of the case are that tl1 : petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, r rving purchased it through a registered sale deed bearing document \< .222412017 dated

24.05.2017 from Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Vijay I.ir mar Agarwal and Ashok Kumar Agarwal. The vendor's title traces be ck to a registered sale deed document No.239l 11995, under whi: r Shyam Sunder Agarwal, his wife Rukmini Bai and his sons acquire: Ac.7.03 guntas in Sy.No.4O6 from Jalagam Venkateshwara Rao. Pric,r to that, Jalagam Venkateshwara Rao acquired the land via a rt1 istered will deed document bearing No.42l 1993, dated 02.09.I9() I from his aunt Smt.Jalagam Tulasamma, who had purchased it I nder a registered sale deed bearing document No.588/ 1994, date<l

08.08.1984 from Smt.Terala Annapurnamma, W/o.Late Somasekhara Rao. The Revenue Department issued ROR passbooks and title deeds i r favour of Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Rukmini Bai, Vijay Kumar Agarwal, and Ashok Kumar Agarwal. Their names were duly reflected as pattad€ rs and possessors in the relevant pahanies and revenue records. a certihcate dated

26.12.2003 was also issued by the Mandal Revenu,: Ofhcer, Paloncha, conhrming their status as pattadars and possessors. (a) It is further contended that, on 07 .l r '.1995, the same qfhcer addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Ko hagudem, stating \ that there was "No Objection" for alienation of the leLr Ld in Sy. Nos 4O6, Pagc J of5 4O7, and 408, as they were patta lands' A report dated l8'O2'2O05 was fence the alsosentbytheRevenueDivisionalOfficertotheDistrictCollector recommending the grant of No Objection Certilicate (C) for setting up a retail outlet on the subject land in Sy'No'406' Despite the above' on 1O.O2.2O2O, the respondents, without any prior notice or Iegal authority, entered the subject land, demolished existing structures' and threatened to dispossess the petitioner, falsely claiming the land to be Government property. They continued to threaten eviction and have forcibly' expressed intentions to The petitioner submits that the land is patta land and not Government land, and that the respondents, particularly Respondents No'2 to 5' have acted in total violation of due process and the principles of natural justice. No notice or show cause was issued to the petitioner' denying him the opportunit5r to defend her lawful possession' The petitioner's No. 25887 of 2019, which was withdrawn father had earlier filed W.P. petition. tn similar circumstances, this with libertY to hle a fresh Hon'ble Court granted interim protection in various writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10491, 1O4g7,10498, 10506' 10507' 1O5O9' 10513' 10515' 1O516 of 2019, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners therein' except I accordance with law 1n Page 4 of5 (b) In light of the above, learned counsel )ontends that the attempt by respondent ofhcials to dispossess the tetitioner without issuing notice, following due procedure, or affordin 3 an opportunity of hearing, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the p- nciples of natural justice, as well as Articles 14, 21, and 300-4, of _l re Constitution of India. It is therefore urged that the respondents t: restrained from undertaking such coercive and unlawful action by invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court under Article 226 of L].e constitution.

4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Gcr :rnment Pleader, appearing on behalf of the learned Government pl,: Lder for Revenue, contended that the prayer of the petitioner is basir d on a complete misconception, as no action has been contemplatec petitioner. It is further submitted that none of tt to dispossess the : officials of the respondent departments have visited the site or reml zed the fencing of the subject land. They further contend that the 1x titioner, with an intention to take shelter under the guise of an order I 'om this Court to legahzr her title over the property and to garnt: sympathy, has approached this Court with false and baseless allegati ,ns. Stating thus, they seek dismissal of the present writ petition.

1. 5. This Court, having heard the respectiv: learned counsel \ and upon perusing the material available on recorct without making any observations on the aspect of title or possessio, of the petitioner Pagc 5 ol5 over the schedule property, directs the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law, if so warranted, and to ensure that any steps taken are within the framework of due process. It is further made clear that the respondents shall refrain from adopting any coercive or high- handed measures against the petitioner, and any action, if necessary, shall be preceded by due notice and opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case, in order to safeguard the principles of natural justice'

6. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed. \ //TRUE COPY// Sd/-L.VIJAYA SIST TRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretanat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Kothagudem. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Kothagudem 4. The Tahsildar, Palvancha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dstrict. 5. The Commissioner, Palvancha Muncipality, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 6. One CC to SRI KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU, Advocate lOPUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Teiangana.

8. Two CD Copies. BSK (p- PMK HIGH GOURT DATED:1210812025 ORDER WP.No.3462 of 2020 G, () '\:.. (\ 12i,ml DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (A- 14 rl ())