G. Ramadevi v. The State of Telangana

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 pleased to issue- an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of [\rlandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in interfering with the possession of the Petitioner over land admeasuring an exfent of Ac. 04-00 Gts. in Sy. No. 66lAN112, situated at lVluneerabad Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded, contrary to the principles of natural justice, without issuing any notice and without following the the due process of law and apart from being violative of the rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitrltion of lndia' and consequentially, direct the Respondent No 3 to not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner over land admeasuring an extent of Ac 04-00 Gts' in Sy. No. 66tAAt112' situated at li'4uneerabad Village' Bommalaramaram Nilandal' Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, except in accordance with law' lA NO: 1 oF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecirr;umstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to Respondent No.3 to not to interfere with the possession of the direct the over land admeasuring an extent of Ac 04-00 Gts in Sy' No' Petitioner 66tAAl112, situated at Muneerabad Village, Bommalaramararn Mandal, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri District. Counsel for the Fetitioner : SRI ZAINAB KHAN Counsel for the Respondents No'1to3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No'4&5 : The Court made the following: ORDER '- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8455 of 202s ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief ."For the aforementioned reasons and those reasons which may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 rn interfering with the possession of the Petitioner over land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 04-00 Gts. in Sy. No. 66 / A / l /2, situated at Muneerabad Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded, contrary to the principles of natural justice, without issuing any notice ald without following the due process of law and apart from being violative of the dghts guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14, 2l and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequentially, direct the Respondent No. 3 to not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner over land admeasuring an extent ofAc. 04- 00 Gts. in Sy. No. 66lAAl tl2, situared at Muneerabad Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bh uvanagiri District, except in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ht in the circumstances of the case."

2. It is stated that the petitioner is in occupation of agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Acs. 04.00 guntas in Survey No.66/AA, situated at Muneerabad Vitlage, Bommalaramaram Mandal, erstwhile Nalgonda District (for short, 'the subject propertyJ for the last 4O years and she is also regularly remitting the tax as Shivayi Jamadar. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.O2.2025 beforc the erstwhile Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommalaramaram Mandal requesting to assign the subject property in her favour and after conducting due enquiry, the erstwhile Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommalaramaram Mandal has assigned the subject propert5r in favour of the petitionet: uid.e proceedings I 2 \. \ CVBR, J W.P.No.8455 of 2025 \ bearing Proc.No-B/ 20o l2oo)' dated 13.o8.20o5 and her name was mutated in the relevant pahanies as pattadar and after introduction of the Dharani Portal, the subject property was reflected in Surv_ey No.€r6/AA/ I 12 and. in the year 2018, the pe titioner was issued a digital pattadar passbook bearing No.T3o07004o167 and the petitioner took steps to fence th.e subject property by using barbed wire a,d stone kadis and she is als. receiving Rythu Bandhu from the year 2or8 till the year 2023 in respt:ct of the subject property. It is further stated that the petitioner received a show cause notice dated, 22.07.2024 issued by 3rd respondent calling upon her to submit a written explanation as to why her name should not be rcmoved from the pattadar column in respect of the subject propertlz .,d the petitioner submitted a written explanation to 3'd respondent on 30.o7.2024 and upon receiving the written explanation from the petitioner, the 3.d respondent orally assured her that no further steps shall be taken in r.espect of mutation with regard to the subject property. It is further su.bmitted that on 28.02.2025, few persons claiming to be oificers deputed by the 3.a respondent came to the subject property a,d attempte,l to remove the barbed wire fencing and kadis surrounding the subject l)roperty, but the petitioner resisted the said interference. It is further stated that on O3.O3.2O25, respondent Nos.4 and 5 accompanied by hr:nchmen, at the instance of the 3.d respondent, trespassed into the subjr:ct property and adjoining property and attempted to remove the existing ba;:bed wire fencing and kadis, apart from trying to measure the subject property. The grievance CVBR, J W.P.No.8455 of.2O25 of the petitioner is that the 3'd respondent may be directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that basing on the assignment certihcate, the petitioner's name is recorded in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deeds have been issued uide Passbook No.T3007O04 0167. Learrted counsel further contended that the 3.d respondent without even conducting any enquiry is frequently interfering with the possession of the petitioner and making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due procedure of law.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that the 3'd respondent is not interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject property and if there is any claim of the Government with regard to the subject property, the respondent authorities will follow due procedure in accordance with law. 4 CVBR, J W.P.No.8455 of 2025 6' Since it is stated by the learned Government pleader for Revenue that the 3'd respondent is not interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property, the ends of justict: would be met if the 3'd respondent is directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property and if the Governrnent is having any claim over the subject property, which is in possession of the petitioner, the respondent authorities u,ould follow due procedure in accordance with law. 7 With the above observations, the Writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall srard closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. I'. TIRUMA DEVI DEPUTY RE STRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri. 3. Tahsildar, Bommararamaram Mandar yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana.

4. One CC to SRt ZATNAB KHAN, Advocate. [OpUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana

6. Two CD Copies. 5 BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 IiriE S14r (, , I U o 1t APi 2s?5 * o Aa-16-, r'a -::-::-=--' / ^t ORDER WP.No.8455 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ c4t'' W €