1. Jeripothula Shiva v. The State of Telangana

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana-500063

2. The District Collector, Waranagal District, Telangan:r. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayaparthi Mandal, Vr/aranagal District, Telangana.

4. The Tahsildar, Rayaparthi Mandal, Waranagal Distrirt, Telangana. ...PETITIONE RS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 3 Jeripothula Shiva, S/o. Late Jeripothula Somaiah, Agerl i,rbout 39 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rl/o. Rayaparthi Gramam, Rayaparthi Manc al, Waranagal District, Telangana. Jeripothula Ve_1kq11a, Q/o, Lale Dasaradham, Aged a:rout 54 years, Occ- Agriculture,_ Rl/o.HNo.2-54, Rayaparthi Gramam, l:iayaparthi Mandal, Waranagal District, Telangana. ...RESPONDENII"M/RIT PETITIONER Gram Panchayat, Represented by its Secretary, Rayaparthi Mandal, Waranagal District, Telangana.

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci''cLrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav l:,e pleased to vacate ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT the status -quo orders dated:26-06-2024 issued in.W.P No.16155 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs. B. RACHNA SR COUNSEL REPRESENTING FOR SRI. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P. KISHORE RAO SC FOR GP The Court made the following: ORDER 1*'!' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHM4.I{ WRIT PETITION No.16155 OF 2024 ORDER Heard Mrs. B. Rachna, leamed Senior Counsel r:prescnting Mr llohd. Bascer Riyaz. Ieamed counsel for the petition:rr; and lcarned Gor crnment Plcader for Assignment appearing on hchalf ol lcspondent Nos. I to 4 CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

2. Petitioner No. I is the absolute owner and po.sessor of the rrcr adrneasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.52'ti.l, situated at Ravaparthi Village and Mandal, Warangal Districr. Likc-wise, petitioner No.2 is claiming that he is the absolute owncr iLnd possessor of the larrd ad measuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey \,J o j2l I /5 of thc very same village. It is their ancestral property. Iltr rr lbrelathcrs rvere in posscssion ofthe said lands and were cultivatir g thc samc. ln the year 20()0, respondent No.4 has issued ass ilrnmcnt patta certiticatcs in lavour oltheir fathers. Petitioner No.l's f irther name is .1. Somaiah and Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Survey No.52i 1/2 was :rssigned to hirn. Petitioner No.2's father is Mr. J. [)rLsfraratham and patta certificate was also issued in t'avour of his father ir respect of thc I I 2 KL, J WP No 16155 of2024 land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.52ll /5. Their name:; were also mutated in revenue record. They have not obtained pattadar passbooks either old or new since they belong to poor lamilies and illiterates.

3. In the year 2021, officials of Revenue Department visited the subject lands and tried to measure the boundaries. Thc pctitioner:; resisted the same. They filed F-Line Application datcd 06.09.201 . lr conducting survey of the lands in Survey Nos.52lli l, 52/l/2, 52/l/3, 52ll/4 and 52lll5 of Rayaparthi Village. The same was not considered. On the application filed by the petitioncrs, thc Public Information Offrcer of respondent No.4 vide lcttcr datcd 20.11.2022 informed the petitioners that there are no records relating to house plots. In the year 2023, the Contractor started carrying out construction activity in the neighbouring lands and later they got to know that the Conhactor carry out the construction work in the subject lands damaging the cotton crop raised by the petitionem. Challenging the said action ofthe respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. I I a) 3 KL, J WP No 16155 of2024 CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTNos.I TO 4

4. Whcreas, respondent No.4 has filed countcr :ontending that respondent No.4 ncver issued any assignment patt;r certiflcate in favour ol' father of petitioner No.l, Mr. Jeripothula S ornaiah. Even pctitioner No.2 also created assigned patta cerlificate dated

15.07.2000 rvith the help of employees of respondent ),Jr'.4. 'Iwo-bed room houses u'cre being constructed in the land in S.rrrey Nos.52l2 t'il 52/3 of Rayaparthy Village. The total land in Srrr.rey No.52 of Ra-vaparthv Village is Acs.97.04 guntas, and it is a ( rovemrnent land (Bancharai). [t is adjacent to Warangal - Khammanr Nrrtional High- It was assigned to the Weaker Section beneficiiuies long ago 'l-here was violation of patta conditions. Therefore, rcs'-rondent No.4 has assurned rhe land by cancelling such assignmcr t. l'hcreafter. lespondcnl No.2 has issued administrative sanction u,lers in three phases lbr construction of 2-BHK houses in RayapartJrl Yillage vide proceedin gs drrted 24.08.2022, 01.09.2023 and 26.09.2 0')-3. The said uurstruction \ as madc in the proposed site i.e., Survc i lt{os.5212 and 5213 of Rayaparthy Viltage, which was resumed by rt s1-rondenl }116.4 in thc year 2012 vide proceedings No.B/85/2012, dated 2 8.05.2012 by I 'i:. 4 KL, J WPNo.l6155 of2021 following the due procedure laid under law. From the date of resumption, the said land is under the control of the Govemment. Thc same was allotted for the purpose of 2-BHK. The petitioners are claiming the said land illegally. They have filed the present writ petition with a mala fide intention to grab the said govemment land. ]-he said 2-BHK houses were allotted to Joumalists, who are below poverty line. Respondent No.4 has issued 'Nivesy'r ana Stholant Certificates' to Nine (09) Journalists. Vide order dated 26.06.2024, this Court directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date in respect of the subject land till next date of hearing. The petitioners flouted the said order and ploughed the [and. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition. ANALYSN AI{D FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

5. As discussed above, petitioner No.l is claiming that the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.52l1/2 of Rayaparthy Village was assigned to his father i.e., Jeripothula Somaiah, but he has not filed copy of such patta certificate. The petitioners have filed patta certificates vide proceedings Rc.No.89/3536/1999, dated

15.07.2000 of respondent No.4. Perusal of the said certificate would I t \ \ 5 KL, J WP No.l6l55 of 2024 reveal that it was issued to one Mr. Jeripothula Mai ;aiah, son of Lachaiah in respect ol land admeasuring Ac.0.20 gr.nlas in Survey No.52ll/i. It u,as not issued in favour of father of pe':itioner No.l, ;\4r. Jeripothula Somaiah. In the said patta ct:r-ificate dated 1 5.07.2000 of the said Jeripothula Maisaiah, there is a correction in Survey Number i.e., they have added "115" after Surv,:,y No.52. In naragraph No.4 of writ affrdavit, petitioner No.I has !;tated that patta certificate was issued in favour of his father, Jeripothul r Somaiah in respect ol the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survt:y No.52l1/2. The said assertion of petitioner No.1 is factually incorre,:t. Petitioner No.l failed to file any patta certificate issued in favorrr of his father Hor'vever, he has filed pahanies for some years whelt:in 'Somaiah' ;-ame is mentioned in pattadar column and possesso-y column in respect o1i Survey No.5211/2. Even in the pahani for thr ,rear 2001-02, there is a correction i.e., they have added "112" after "5.2". Ilowever, ,.he said pahanies were issued by the Deputy Tahsild lr who has no power to issue such pahanies and it is the Tahsildar, u,ltc has power to issue the same. 'I'herefore, petitioner No.1 herein filed th,: present writ petition without establishing his right over the subjecl property. He .': a:r 6 KL, J wP No. t6155 0f2024 has not mentioned the date of death of his father and details of legal heirs. So, he cannot claim right over the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.52ll 12. He has to establish his right over the said land and then approach the Revenue Authorities to mutate his name in revenue records and issue e-pattadar passbooks. Basing on the stray entries in the kacha pahanies issued by Nai6 Tahsildar, who is not competent authority to issue pahanies, that too, for two (02) years, petitioner No,I cannot claim right over Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Survey No.52 of Rayaparthy Village. He has approached this Court with unclean hands and seeking writ of mandamus. Therefore, petitioner No.l is not entitled for any relief, much less the relicl sought in the present writ petition. Thus, this writ petition is liablc to be dismissed against petitioner No.1 herein.

6. With regard to petitioner No.2, he is also claiming the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.52l1/5 of Rayaparthy Village and according to him, the said land was assigned to his father. He has lrled copy of patta certificate Rc.No.89/353611999, dated

15.07.2000. Perusal of the same would reveal that it was issued in fa{our of Mr. Jeripothuta Dasharatham S/o Lachaiah- In the said patta I \ 7 KL, J WP No.l6l55 of2024 certificate, survey number is mentioned as '52'. Ther,: is no mention with regard to survey No.52l1/5. Therefore, there is no explanation irom petitioner No.2 as to his claim of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.52ll/5 of Rayaparthy Village. I{t: has also not mentioned the date of death of his father and details r f legal heirs of his father. He has also filed pahanies for some years to show that his 1'ather name is there in possessory and pattadar colunm

7. As discussed supra, the said pahanies were istiued by Naib Tahsildar, Ra5 aparthy Village, who is not competent autl'ority to issue pahanics. It is the specific contention of respondent No.4 that they are proceeding rvith construction of 2-BHK houses in Srrrrey Nos.52l2 and 5213 of Rayaparthy Village. According to h rr. an extent of Acs.1.03 guntas 1n Survey No.52 /2 was assigrerl to one Mr Palakurthy Sambaiah and Acs.l.02 guntas of land in litrrvey No.52l3 ',vas assigned to one Mr. Chegonda Komrelli. They har,t: sold the said rand to third parties. Therefore, they have violated the :onditions of ass ignment. tr' ide pr oceedings, dated 28.0 5.20 12 in Rc. |i o. B/8 5/20 1 2, respondent No.4 cancelled the said assignment in favor-ir of the said assignees. Thus, according to respondent No.4, the sa:d land is in the l. 8 KL, J WPNo.16155 01 2r) I custody of the Govemment since then, and now the same was allotted for construction of 2-BHK and the District CoHector has already accorded sanction. The construction was entrusted to a Contractoi.. He has almost completed the construction of 2-BHK. In proof of the same, he has filed photographs.

8. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioners are claiming the land in Survey No.52ll/2 and 52lll5. As discussed above, petitioner No.l did not fi[e any document to show that he is ll : owner and possessor of the said land. He has not filed copy of patta certificate issued to his father.

9. Petitioner No.2 has filed copy of patta certificate issued in favour of his father, Jeripothula Dasaradham. In the patta certificate issued in favour of father of petitioner No.2 and Jeripothula Maisaiah, proceedings number and date is one and the same i.e', Rc.No.B/3536/1999, dated 15.07.2000. In the patta certificate of petitioner No.2's father, Survey Number is mentioned as'52'of Rayaparthy Village. Therefore, there is no explanation {ic'r r petitioner No.2 as to how he is claiming the right over the land in I Survey No.52l1/5 of Rayaparthy Village. According to respondent \ \ 9 KL, J WP No 16155 of2024 No.4, the said 2-BI{K construction is in Survey Nos.5 li,l and 5213 of Rayaparthy Village. It is his specific contention thrt they are not making c,:nstruction in the land in Survey Nos.52ll r2 ,nd 521115 of Ral,aparthy Village as alleged by the petitioners,

10. It is also apt to note that on the complaint lr'dged by one Mr. Giruka Suresh, the police of Rayaparthi has regislc 'ed a case in r.lrime No.82 of 2018 against petitioner No.2 f-or .he offences punishable under Scctions - 447 and 427 of IPC. Ort c rmpletion of investigation. the Investigating Officer laid charge sheel against him Thereafter:, the same was ended in compromised. I l. As discussed above, petitioner No.1 cannot c li.im right over the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No-51 I /2 basing on some stray-entries in some pahanies issued by NalD I rlrsildar. Even photographs filed by the petitioners would reveal that c, ,nstruction is almost complele. Vide order dated 26.06.2024, this Co:rr - directed the parties to maintain status quo. By virtue of the said orr c:, entire work is stalled. Thus, there is dispute with regard to iccr.tification of property ( t I I ( f, 10 KI-, J WPNo 16155 of20l1

12. Therefore, respondent No.4 has to conduct survey to demarcate the land in Suwey Nos.52l2 and 52/3 of Rayaparthy Village by fixing boundaries which was allotted for the purpose of construction of 2-BHK houses by putting the petitioners and all interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the rcspondents and Contractor shall proceed with construction ol 2-BIIK houses in the land in Survey Nos.52l2 and 5213 of Rayaparthy Village CONCLUSION:

13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of insofar as petitioner No.2 herein is concemed, while the writ petition 1{ dismissed insofar as petitioner No.1 is concemed. In the circumstances ofthe cases, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ pctition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.M. OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, I 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Tela Hyderabad, Telangana-500063. na Secretariat,

2. The District Collector, Waranagal District, Telangana. .L.- 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayaparthi Mandal, ty'/,rr;lnagal District, Telangana. The Tahs,ldar, Rayapa(hi Mandal, Waranagal District T,,langana. The Secretary. Gram Panchayat, Rayaparthi Mandal, V,i irranagal District, Telangana. One CC to SRl. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Advocate [OF'LICl One CC to SRI P. KISHORE RAO SC FOR GP [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for thr: State of Telangana Two CD Copies 4 5 6 7 B a KKS LS w I HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 \ t ORDER WP.No.16155 of 2024 ,,i ..... ,.. \ sEP 2025 .',/ t d DISPOSING OF THE W.P. INSOFAR PETTTTONER No.2 tS CONCERNED AND DISMISSING THE W.P. INSOFAR PETITIONEFI No.1 tS CONCERNED WITHOUT COSTS I Wil