K. Rama Kishore v. The State of Telangana

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the'interim orders granted in w.p. No.7o1612024 dt.15-3-2024 and dismiss the writ petition. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ABDUL AZAM KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.s: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI p.KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel forthe Respondent No.8: SRI NAGARAJU NAGURU The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 70 L6 0F 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition, is hled seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Wit or Direction or an Order more pantianlarly one in the ncture of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the offciaL R'espond-ent Nos. 2 to 6 it aLlowing the iltegal and .unauthoized construction coried out bg the unofficiat Respondent No 8 in gouentment ianrl in Sg.No.125/A/2 in an extent of Ac.0-o2 gt:-9y.*!!ining NALA .oir"r"ioi c,nd petmisston for tle land in Sy No 125/A2/2 situated at Prodduturu Vrllage, Chinthakant Mandol, Khammam Distict as iLlegal' arbitrary, uncortl:rtutiolrcll, uiolatiue of prtnciples of naturat Justice and crnt"qi"nttg rlirect the offtctal Respondent Nos 2 to 6 to remoue the illegal'and inatrthorizecl i.onstruction catried out by the Respondent No 8 loir Lne lartcl tr Sy.No.125/A/2 situated at Prodduturu Villaqe' Chinthakari Mandal, Khammam Dstict..." I t is statcd that petitioner is resident of Prodduturu Village' 2. Chinthakani Mar-rdal, Khammam District' It is the case of the petitioner that sevcral years ago, pattadar of the land in Sy No-125 situatcd at Prodduturu Village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District, had donated land admeasuring Ac'O O2 gts to the respondent No.6-Gram Panchayath and in the said land' the rcspondent No.6 dug a well for the purpose of drinking water' It is lurther case of thc petitioner that respondent No'S with the support of local otficiats tltled the said well with mud and started making construction- [t is also case of the petitioner that the respondent No.S illegally obt:rined NALA conversion proceedings in respec[ of lancl in Sy. No. 125 / A2 I 2 and carried out constructiot-r in the land in S-v.No.125/A/2. tt is lurthcr case of the petitioner that stating that 2 said facts, he submitted a representation dated O4.O3.2O24 to Lhe respondent-authorities and acting upon the same, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, issued a Memo vide Rc.No.B /L2a/2O24 dated 13.03.2024 directing the respondent No.8 ro stop further construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the said memo dated 13.03.2 O24 till date, no action has been taken_

3. On 15.03.2024, when the matter rvas taken up for hearing, this Court passed the following order: "Respontlent No 4_-th9 TahsitdcLr, peddqkqni Mqnclql, ts directed to utithin a com.Plgte enqiry in Rc.No.B/ 128/ 2O24 dat;d peiod of three (3) tteeks from the date of recetpt of a copg of this order. 't'i.OS.ZOZq tt is submitted that despite Rc.No.B/ 128/ 2O24 drlted 13.03.2024 issued bg the Tahsilda1 directing nsponaint" -wo S to stop furthe.r construction in respect tt* ?y admeclsuing Ac.0_04 guntai ,i Srri,u No.125/A2/2 situated at. proddutur VAbg;, Cnintnakant Mqndql, Khammam District, respondent No.8 t pr"iiiirg-;rth tLe constnlctio, and making anangements to enter into reaie agreement ulth a prospectiue tenant. "f _ - Respond.ent No.8 is directed to complg with Rc.No.B/j28/2024 dated 13.03.2024 and not to-create ong tirrA parl'g'nterest bg tuag of sole/ leose, until nexl date of hearinq. Issue notice to respondent o.g. . Leamed counsel for the p-etitioner is pennitted to take out personal tne next date of notice to respondent No.g and fite proof of seruce heaing. -iy Mr.P.Kishore Rao, leanned. Standing Counsel for Gram panchaaath accepts notice on betnlf of respondent nol6. Post on 12.04.2024.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the learned Standing Counsel lor the Gram panchayat, has produced the copy of order dated 28. 12.2024 passed in Rc.No.B/ t2g/2024 by the respondent I J No.4-Tahsildar. The relevant portions of the said order dated

28.12.2024 reads as follows: "In obedience to tl'Le orders of the Hon'ble Court, futtller enquiry has beert conducted. Duing enquiry, it is euirlent that in earlier days, the WelL is reported to be, AgicuLture Well being used for Agricutture purpose by the land owrter. During a presttgtous programme launched bg Jormer erstuthiLe Gouernmert of Telangana, colled os "PALLE PRAGATHI", the Stand.itg Comntlttees uere [dentifed for remouoJ of debis, garbage, unuonted trees, thornA bushes, unused Luells, bore uells, tuater logging etc.. Irt orcler Lo elicil the facts, the MPDO Chintakani h<ts been requested to report LolLether the open well is donated to Gram Panchagat bg the LanLd owner curcl furn[sh releuant documents, if ang. Ttrc MPDO h(ls funusheci his report on 3.4.2024 stating that the uell is not donated to the Glttnr PancltaAzt and no details are found in their registers. Ile has funisherl llte Gra,tl Panchagat Resolutions. As could be seen from the resolutrorrs tode, the eistitg otd. well adjacent to the Rice MilL is proposed for closure os il [s not being used. Accordinglg, duing PoLLeprdgrallti prograrrLnte, the said uLell tuqs closed. From the documetlts produced, it LS eudent that Filling of Old Drtnking wqter uell irt pLace of Pentgolo [,u ntcth u'cts closed bA ina nring an amount of Rs.17,647.00. '['herefore, d ccut be satd that tLte old uell pertatns to the familg of Pentgata Pul[aiah. Furlher, ueri.fication of reuenue records reueals thctt the Sg.No.125 rneasuring Ac.l1.2O gts 6 Patta lond, but not Gouerftmeftt land. As q[readll stated aboue, Smt. Gurram Chitti W o.Ramesh ho's purchesed the larld fronl th", tttle hotder and obtained Patto.d.an- po'ss Boolt. From the foregorng discussions, it is qn admifted fact that the Sg.iVo. /25 tncasunnq Ac.11.2O gts is potta land, but not Gouernment Lattd. Enquiry rli-sclose-s tllet the familg of pentgqlq dug agiculture tuelt for cuLtit'ctton of therr ctclnculture lends. As stqted supra, the Otd u_teu 4 wlaich is not being used uere closed during palle pragathi programme bg the Grqm Panchagat. Afr.er closure of old. ueU, the tand is fit for constnLction oJ Lause. Therefore, Smt. Gurram Chjtti ha_s purchased. the same from the title hntder of the land and. obtained. pattadar pciss book and subsequentlg, obtained NALA permbston and on getting house constnrction permission from Gram panchagaL she mo.de construction of house thereon. Hauing taken into constderrttion oI the facts, it i.s crystal clear that the land Ln SA.NI.125 is patta land, but not Gouernment land. No record is placed bg the Gram panchagat that the Agicutture Weu uas donqted to the Gram Panchagat for public purpose. The welt is not under use and in ditapidated conditions. As such, the utell uc.s closed during Patlepragathi programme bg incurring qn amount of Rs.17,647.OO as per lhe biLls produced bg the MPDO Chintqkani. Therefore, there is no tnih that Sml GwTom Chitti W/o RqmeslL encroaclrcd Gouentment land and constnacted house as alleged. Howeuer, the petitioner Ls at libertg to produce substantial euidence to proue that the We dug as in Gouemment land or relinquished the rights to the Gram panchagat bg the lancl olltner, rf it is pqtta tand Jor taking action under the prouisions o,f TS L<ttrd Encroachment Act, 19O5 for euiction."

5. A carelul examination of the aforesaid order reveals that the land in Sy-No.125, admeasuring Ac. 11.20 gts, is private patta land but not Government land. As per the revenue records, Smt.Gurram Chitti W/o Ramesh, purchased the said land and she was also issueJ Pattadar Passbook. Thereafter, she obtained NALA conversion permission and also building permission from the Gram panchayat and commenced the construction. The petitioner,s claim that the subject land was donated to the Gram Panchayat for public use is not supported by any evidence. The MpDO, Chinthakani, in his i l, ,1 :: i I I I I ! .) report dated O3.O4.2O24, clearly stated that there is no record of such a donation in lhe ofhcial registers. The order dated 28.12.2Q24 also shows that the well in question was originally an agricultural well used for irrigation by the landowner and was later closed as part of the "Palle Pragathi" program as per the decision of the Gram Panchayat. There is no prool that the said well was meant for public drinking water or that it was olficially handed over to the Gram Panchayat. In vicw of the above, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and thc same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingll', tlris Writ PetiLion is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is having an1' dispute with regard to naLure and classification of thc subject land, he is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Colrrt ancl seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, if he is so advised. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No ordcr as to costs \ //TRUE COPY// AS SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

2. J.

4. q r) BSR GJP One CC to SRt ABDUL AZAM KHAN Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRt NAGARAJU NAGURU, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt p.KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAM.PANCHAYAT [OPUC] Iff":r?:J"r""r?lFoR REVENUE' Hish court ror the state of reransana at Two CCs to Gp FOR p, lelangana at Hyderabad td,Ti'o"o' Two CD Cooies RAJ' High cou( for the State of YA- HIGH COURT DATED: 0510212025 ORDER WP.No.7O16 of 2024 I 1 1rE ST47'6 r ]'/ () 2 E APn :fl25 * Dg .9 i-).,\ r aj \ r\.:O DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (+ 4ld"r