Dharavath Padma v. 1. 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 grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.2- 00 in Sy.no.1 37i 1/E situated at Chunchupally Revenue (V&M) Bhadradri Kothagudem District pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:2 OF 2020 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 permit the petitioner to implead proposed respondent Nos 9 and'10 as respondent nos 9 and 10 in the W.P. No 2014712020 as well as in lA in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6 : SRI H.RAKESPKUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Ms. ANJAMMA, AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S, 7 & 8 : SRI RAM PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR sRr G.NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYA,I,', The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL I['RIT PETITION No.2O L47 0F 2o.2o ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following retief/s:- "... to issue Writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent nos.7 and 8 and their subordinates in high handedly trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.2-O0 in Sy.no. 137 /l lE situared at Chunchupally Revenue (V&M) Bhadradri Kothagudem District without issuing prior notice and without following due process o[ law under the pretexr of establishing prakruthi vanarn as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles o[ natural justice and Art 14 and 3OO-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 to 8 not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of larv and pass such other or further orders /

2. Heard Mr.Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6, Ms.Anjamma, learned Assistant. Government Pleader representirrf;"a.ned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr.Ram Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Narender Reddy, leirned Standing .,t Counsel for Gram Panchayath appearing for respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8. f' \ \ 2 tr-Y-.\ \ \.,

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a scheduled tribe and she is in continuous possession of land admeasuring Acs.5-00 gts in Sy.No.l37 ll lE situated at Chunchupatly Revenue (V&M), Bhadradri Kothagudem- District, which is an Agency Area; that she purchased the land admezrsuring Acs.2-2O gts., from one Bhukya Ramdas on 6-l-2014 through sada sale deed; that the land admeasuring Acs.2-2O gts., was purchased through sada sale deed from Bhukya Papanayak on l7-2-2OL4; that the subject land of Acs.S-OO gts in Sy.No.137 / I /E was recorded in 1955-56 pahani as patta land in the narne of one Meddela Anandam; that the original pattadar had sold the said land to one K.Durga Rao through registered sale deed prior to Regulation I l7O; that the said Durga Rao in turn had sold the entire land to one Bhukya Ramadas; that thereafter, Bhukya t, Ramdas had again sold an extent of Acs.2-2Ogts. of land, to petitioner and another extent of Acs.2-20 gts., to one Papa nayak; that- subsequently the said erp"n.{rt , in turn sold arvay said extent of land admeasuring Acs .2-2O gts. to the petitioner herein and as such presently the said two sada sale \ \ -.j--"-'--..'-. s 3 deeds were registered in favour of the petitioner herein, who is the owner of Acs.5-OO gts of land at Chunchupally.

4. It is stated that when the revenue officials sought to interfere with the possession of subject land, one K. Durga Rao i.e., the petitioner's vendor's vendor had filed O.S.No.41 of 1989 on the file of learned Sub-ordinate Judge at Kothagudem seeking the relief of Injunction against the Government and Revenue officials. vide judgment dated 11-9-L992 in O.S.No.41 of 1989, Perpetual Injunction vvas granted in favour of the petitioner's vendor's vendor and the stand of defendants stating that the subject land is Government land was rejected; that the petitioner was the subsequent purchaser from the said Durga Rao and that the Injunction was continuously operating in favour of petitioner p as well. whileso, respondent no.6 and other officials allotted the land admeasuring Acs.2-OO gts in Sy.No. 137 /1/E in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8 for ft'Velopment of "Prakruthi - vanam", without issuing any notice to the petitioner; that respondent Nos.7 and 8 and its subordinates high handedly threatened to dispossess the petitioner from .the land admeasuring Acs.2-OO gts in Sy.No. 137 / I /E \,:/ ti-! L-,rl / 4 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had submitted a representat-ion dated O2.LI.2O2O to the concerned officials. But in vain; that the petitioner had also submitted another application through on-line Mee seva on 31-1O-2O2O vide receipt No.9907648 and the same is pending consideration; that under the pretext of establishing 'Prakruthi Vanam' respondenl- Nos.7 and 8 and other officials are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following clue process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned. counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment clated 11-9-1992 in O.S.No.41 of 1989 on the file of learned Sub-ordinate Judge at Kothagudem has not become final as it was not challenged by the respondenls. Therefore, he states that the action of respondents in making a counter claim and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, without notice is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, t " ""ft* Writ Petition. to allow the

6. Learrred Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue by furnishing the copy of written instructions passed on to the ,- --.,,- ---'_"_T- . 5 learned Government Pleader for Revenue contends that Sy.No.137 has the land admeasuring Acs.427.31 gts, out of which land, an extent of land admeasuring Acs.160.39 gts pertains to Patta land in sub-division 137 /A, and remaining land admeasuring Acs.266.32 gts pertains to the Government Land with sub-division I37 / AA; that the Government has given land admeasuring Acs.201.00 gts to SCCL, Kothagudem on lease basis for their mining & other activities; later, the land admeasuring Acs.163.11 gts was surrendered to the Revenue Department by the SCCL Authorities in the year

2009. 7 . He further submits that Kothagudem Mandal was divided into four (4) mandals at the time of formation of new * mandals and divisions in the state of Telangana nanrely Kothgudem Mandal, Laxmidevipally Mandal, Chunchupalli Mandal & Sujathanagar mandal; that the present schedule Iand situated at Chunchupalli Revenue Village & Mandal and this mandal comes under Agency Area; that the Government of Telangana had introduced and given instructions for identification of Govt. Land for construction of "Palle Prakruthi Vanam" in all the Gram Panchayats in the district Lts -&t d 6 and accordingly, the field staff had identified the Government Land (leased land handed over to Tahsildar, Chunchupalli by the SCCL, Kothagudem authorities through panchanama) in Sy.No. 137 l1 to an extent of Acs.2.OO gts and the sarne was allotted for construction of 'PALLE PRAKRUTHI VANAM' to Babu Camp & N.K.Nagar Gram Panchayats of Chunchupalli Mandal (A Ac.1.00 gts for each Gram Panchayal and that the work was under progress.

8. He states contends that the petitioner has no right over the scheduled land which was allotted for construction of "Palle Prakruthi Vanams" in the Gram Panchayaths and the said scheduled land was never cultivated by the petitioner or others since (50) -years; that it is the Government Land. He states that the petitioner approached this Court ;vith unclean hands to knock away the Government Land and seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondegt Nos.7 and 8 by filing th.eir respective counter affidavits also submit that Sy.No.137 has the land admeasuring Acs.427.31 gts, out of which lancl admeasuring Acs.160.39 gts pertains to the Patta Land in sub-division 137 I A and that the remaining land .4 ,/ ,! .l -.n" 7 admeasuring Acs.266.32 gts pertains to the Government Land in sub-division 137 /AA; that the Government has given land admeasuring Acs.2ol.00 gts to sccl, Kothagudem on lease basis for their mining & other activities; later, the land admeasuring Acs.163.11 gts was surrendered to the Revenue Department by the sccl. Authorities in the year 2oog. Therefore learned counsel states that the petitioner has no right over the subject land and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

10. Having regard to the submissions of all the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, this court, without making any observations on the possession of the petitioner, is of the opinion that if at all respondent Nos.7 and 8 are trying - to interfere with the subject property, they shall strictly follow the procedure contemplated under law. No order as to costs. 1 1. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 6 Needless to mention, the petitioner is granted liberty to work out the remedies as available under law. I I & .ti 8 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed. To /TRUE COPY/ SD/. B. REKHA RANI NT REGIS ,$crrou oFFlcER

13.Two CD CoPies SA GJP 0srq. I \ \ / / ffiE S14 2 E t{0U il6 z * TCH EO Y \ I * l t{ HIGH GOURT DATED i2810812025 s a o DER WP.No.20147 of 2020 ." : ..,r : ! i DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. -.,' * f "*2 @o*, ,-r-\,t I >{ a *