K. Nagesh Kumar v. 1. 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, seeking to declare the proceedings RC No. P.1680112012 dated 25-1 1- 2016 and the Panchanama dated 28-11-2016 conducted by the Respondent No. 3 and his subordinates as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and fabricated one to defeat the rights of the petitioner on his residential house including open space plot vide .H.No. 'l-1-35711 , Sai nagar, Samithi singarum Manugoru and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the residential House and open plot bearing No. 1-'1 -35711 , Sai Nagar, Manuguru, of the Petitioner at the behest of the unofficial Respondents without following due process of law. I.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:277 45 0F 20171 Petition Under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the cir :umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor r may be pleased to suspend proceedings in RC No. Bl68o1t2o12 dated s.11.2016 and the Panchanama Dt. 28-11-2016 conducted by the Responder No.3 and his sub- ordinates, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt P.VTSHNUVARDHANA REI) )y Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR SOCIAL WELt:, rRE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Gp FOR REVENUT: Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI GOpINATH LAKKII{ :Nl The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI<A WRIT PETITION No.22542 of 2Ol7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, seeking to declare the proceedings RC No.B/680112012 dated 25. ll.2Ot6 and rhe Panchanama, dated 2A.7I.2016, conducted by respondent No.3 and his subordinates as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and labricated one to defeat the rights of the petitioner on his residential house including open space plot uide H.No. l-l-3SZ ll Sai Nagar, Samithi Singarum, Manuguru and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere u.ith the residential House and open plot bearing No. 1-1-357/1, Sai Nagar, Manuguru of the petitioner at the behest of the unofficial respondent without following due process of iaw.

2. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, iearned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gopinath Lakkineni, iearned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. The petitioner claims to be the lawful owner and possessor of residential house bearing H.No.1- 1-357/ 1 consisting of (asbestos sheets) inciuding the land to a:.r extent of 3 % guntas .-I- \ ,-].. {r-!{tlrt 2 attached to it in Sai Nagar' Manuguru ' Khammam t'i ;trict' "vhich he alieged to have been in possession of his farnily s'r 'ce 1950 He contends that the panchalama date<l 28Jl'2016 v'i s conducted arbitrarily and that the respondents are attempr.ing o dispossess irim from the subject property' despite the fact that E Ls possession is rawfur a'c protected. He also aleges that resp.r dent No.4 is attempting to interfere with the subject property rv th the aid of revenue officials, based on false ancl fabricated doctt: rents' 4. Respondent No 3 has hled a counter afhda" L denving the petitioner's title, asserting that the land in quest( n is assigned Government land situated in a scheduled Agency e't :a' It is stated that by virtue of Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 195! (as amended)' ri htful titie or the petitioner, being a non-tribal' has no o: ders directing possession. It is stated that administrative ejectment in favour of the tribal claimant are valid Lnd iawful, and further stated that the Petitioner's allegattons are baseless. It 'l that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of fiLi rg an appeal or revision before the competent authority' i 5'Aftercarefulconsidcrationoftheplea<iirrgslocuments,and >li'r s intricate fercts relevant laws, it is observed that the case lnv( relating to possession, ownership' and statutoll restrictions on alienation of tribal's assigned land The petitione I s ciaim is based l _,-=-- on documents not registered under the Registration Act and 3 prohibited under applicable Agency Laws.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Agent to Government/ District Collector or the Project Ofhcer, ITDA, as provided under the applicable statutory provisions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution of India at this stage. 7 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is hled within the stipulated time, the competent appellate autfrority shali consider the same on its own merits. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties for a period of eight (8) weeks or tiil filing of the appeal, whichever is earlier. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA ASSISTANT REGI R I //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Principal Secretary, Tri I etangana at Hyderabad. 2. The District Coliector, Bhad 3. The Tahsildar, Manuouru M 4. Two CCs to Gp FOR-REVE Hyderabad. IOUTI CTION OFFICER bal Welfare Department, TS ecretariat, State of radri Kothagadem District. at Kothagudem. i,t'El,iif, %3t[ ["J i,? 31:[ "++5',:,"U:* :1. Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CCs to GP FbR SOCIAL WELFARE (TG) ,High c: rrt for the State of 6. o;; iC to snt i'.vtsHttuvRRDHANA REDDY, Advoca e [oPUC] 7. One CC to SRI GOPINATH LAKKINENI, Advocate [OPt Cl B. Two CD CoPies SA ,rt .rrt- I 0 0 l JAil 2028 L, L)tt. k ( l.. .,',}. HIGH COURT DATED:1110912025 ( I ORDER WP.No.22542 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 02 I \,rt)'