High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying thal 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 declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the Respondent No.4 and 5 interfering with the petitioners possession and intending to dispossess the petitioners from the said property admeasuring Ac. 2-00 in Sy. No. 4212511 of Naspur Village, Naspur Mandal, ltrlancherial District without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of Revenue Act and Laws besides in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 I and 5 not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the Respondent No. 4 and 5 not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law from land admeasuring Ac. 2-t)O in Sy. No.42t2511 of Naspur Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District without following process of law, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1- The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Collector, Mancherial District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, l\/ancherial, District. 4. The Tahsildar, Naspur [t/andal, Mancherial, District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 Jummidi Viswanath. S/o. Late. Jummidi Papaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 37-76/1 , Jodupalem, Mandamarri, Adilabad, ltllancheria I District-T.S. Jummidi Shankar, S/o. Late. Jummidi Papaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No.6-64/2, Rebbena, Rebbena, Adilabad-T.S. Telangana Non Gazetted Officers Association, Rep by their President, Office at {Vancherial. I\,4ancherial District. Respondent No.3 is not necessary party to this petition 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 dt: 1810712024 in WP.No.19006 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. NASEEM ARA ,/ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI H.SOMAIAH EZRA SASTRI, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSH]VIAN \\'IIIT PETITION No.19006 OF 2024 OR-{L ORT)EIT: Hcard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.H.Somaiah Ezra Sastri, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Assignment and Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing fbr rcspondent No.5.

2. According to the petitioners, respondent No.4 has assigned land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.42l25r1, situated at Naspur Villagc and Mandal, Mancherial District in lavour of their mother, nantely, Smt.Jummidi Rajamma. In prool of the sarne, they have filed Final Patta Certificate vide R.C No.B339/1972, dated 28.07.1t)98. Petitioners' mother died in the year 2020. Thereafter, petitioners liave succeeded the subject properfy.

3. Earlier rvhen respondent No.4 tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' mother, she and Jumnradi Muthaiah have filed W.P.No.42767 of 2015. Vide order dated 31.12.2015, 2 this Courl directed respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession o1'the petitioners therein over the subject propefty. They have filed Conternpt Case No.1963 of 2017 against the then Tliasildar, Mancherial Mandal, alleging violation of the said order dated 31.12.2015. Vida order dated21.04.2023, this Court closed the said Contempt Case holding that there is no speciflc allegations against the then Tahsildar with regard to the violation of thc said order. Horvcver, this Court granted tiberty to them to filc fi'esh Contempt Case, if thc order in question is violated by the respondent thercin, if they are so advised. The saicl rvrit petition is pending.

4. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that at the instance of respondent No.5, respondent No.4 is trying to interlere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property.

5. Leamcd Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment, on instructions, would submit that the Final Patta Certificatc, dated

28.07.1998 filed by the petitioners is fake and they have created 3 the same. 1'herefore, respondent No.4 is going to take action against thc pctitioners by lodging complaint before Police. According trr hirn, the name of Jummidi Rajarnma. Wo Papaiah is typed in thc said Final Patta Certificate, dated 28.07.1998. Horvever, in thc year 1998 there are no computers and respondent No.4 used kr rnention the names rvith pen. Therelore, according to learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Assignment, the said Final Patta (lerliflcate dated 28.07.1998 filed by the petitioner is fake one.

6. Leamcd counsel appearing for respondent No.5, o11 instructions, would submit that the Joint Collector. Adilabad, has allotted Iand adrneasuring Acs.32.02 guntas in Sy.No.42 of Nasapur in iavour of respondent No.5. Even then, petitioners are trying to interlere with the said properly allotted to respondent No.5. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter stating so along with the said proceeclings.

7. As discussed supra, the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that respondent No.4 is interfering with 4 the possession of the petitioners over the subject properly and trying to dispossess them from the subject propefty. If respondent No.4 tried to dispossess them from the subject property, they have to file fresh Contempt Case as per the liberly granted by this Court vide order dated 2l .04.2023 in Contempt Case No. 1963 of 2011 . If respondent No.5 or its members interfered with the possession of the petitioners over the subject propefty, they have to file suit against respondent No.5 and its members. They can't file the present writ petition.

8. In the light of the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberly to the petitioners to f,rle fresh Contempt Case against respondent No.4 in terms of order dated 21 .04.2023 in Conternpt Case No.1963 of 2017 and also file suit against respondent No.5 and its members. Liberly is also granted to respondent No.4 to lodge a complaint against the petitioners or take action against them on thc allegation of claiming right over the subject properly basing on a fake Final Patta Cerlificate vide --|tlr 5 R.C.No. 83 3 9 / 1 97 2, dated 28.01 .1998. In the circumsrances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' liD B. REKHA RANI NT REGIST A.S To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secreta of Telangana.

2. The Collector, [,4ancherial District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lVancherial, District. 4. The Tahsildar, Naspur lt/andal, lt/ancherial, District. E TION OFFICER ) Hyderabad, State 5 6 7 The President, Telangana Non Gazetted Officers Association, Office at lvlancherial, It/ancherial District. One CC to [,rls. NASEET\,4 ARA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI G.N/ADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNIUENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 9 BSR GJ Two CD Copies t9 HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 ORDER WP.No.19006 of 2024 q J ,te U. \o, 1 )\, 29 0[I zilI a ,f.s "ar DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying thal 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 declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the Respondent No.4 and 5 interfering with the petitioners possession and intending to dispossess the petitioners from the said property admeasuring Ac. 2-00 in Sy. No. 4212511 of Naspur Village, Naspur Mandal, ltrlancherial District without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of Revenue Act and Laws besides in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 I and 5 not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the Respondent No. 4 and 5 not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law from land admeasuring Ac. 2-t)O in Sy. No.42t2511 of Naspur Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District without following process of law, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1- The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Collector, Mancherial District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, l\/ancherial, District. 4. The Tahsildar, Naspur [t/andal, Mancherial, District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 Jummidi Viswanath. S/o. Late. Jummidi Papaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 37-76/1 , Jodupalem, Mandamarri, Adilabad, ltllancheria I District-T.S. Jummidi Shankar, S/o. Late. Jummidi Papaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No.6-64/2, Rebbena, Rebbena, Adilabad-T.S. Telangana Non Gazetted Officers Association, Rep by their President, Office at {Vancherial. I\,4ancherial District. Respondent No.3 is not necessary party to this petition 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 dt: 1810712024 in WP.No.19006 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. NASEEM ARA ,/ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI H.SOMAIAH EZRA SASTRI, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSH]VIAN \\'IIIT PETITION No.19006 OF 2024 OR-{L ORT)EIT: Hcard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.H.Somaiah Ezra Sastri, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Assignment and Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing fbr rcspondent No.5.

2. According to the petitioners, respondent No.4 has assigned land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.42l25r1, situated at Naspur Villagc and Mandal, Mancherial District in lavour of their mother, nantely, Smt.Jummidi Rajamma. In prool of the sarne, they have filed Final Patta Certificate vide R.C No.B339/1972, dated 28.07.1t)98. Petitioners' mother died in the year 2020. Thereafter, petitioners liave succeeded the subject properfy.

3. Earlier rvhen respondent No.4 tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' mother, she and Jumnradi Muthaiah have filed W.P.No.42767 of 2015. Vide order dated 31.12.2015, 2 this Courl directed respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession o1'the petitioners therein over the subject propefty. They have filed Conternpt Case No.1963 of 2017 against the then Tliasildar, Mancherial Mandal, alleging violation of the said order dated 31.12.2015. Vida order dated21.04.2023, this Court closed the said Contempt Case holding that there is no speciflc allegations against the then Tahsildar with regard to the violation of thc said order. Horvcver, this Court granted tiberty to them to filc fi'esh Contempt Case, if thc order in question is violated by the respondent thercin, if they are so advised. The saicl rvrit petition is pending.

4. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that at the instance of respondent No.5, respondent No.4 is trying to interlere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property.

5. Leamcd Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment, on instructions, would submit that the Final Patta Certificatc, dated

28.07.1998 filed by the petitioners is fake and they have created 3 the same. 1'herefore, respondent No.4 is going to take action against thc pctitioners by lodging complaint before Police. According trr hirn, the name of Jummidi Rajarnma. Wo Papaiah is typed in thc said Final Patta Certificate, dated 28.07.1998. Horvever, in thc year 1998 there are no computers and respondent No.4 used kr rnention the names rvith pen. Therelore, according to learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Assignment, the said Final Patta (lerliflcate dated 28.07.1998 filed by the petitioner is fake one.

6. Leamcd counsel appearing for respondent No.5, o11 instructions, would submit that the Joint Collector. Adilabad, has allotted Iand adrneasuring Acs.32.02 guntas in Sy.No.42 of Nasapur in iavour of respondent No.5. Even then, petitioners are trying to interlere with the said properly allotted to respondent No.5. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter stating so along with the said proceeclings.

7. As discussed supra, the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that respondent No.4 is interfering with 4 the possession of the petitioners over the subject properly and trying to dispossess them from the subject propefty. If respondent No.4 tried to dispossess them from the subject property, they have to file fresh Contempt Case as per the liberly granted by this Court vide order dated 2l .04.2023 in Contempt Case No. 1963 of 2011 . If respondent No.5 or its members interfered with the possession of the petitioners over the subject propefty, they have to file suit against respondent No.5 and its members. They can't file the present writ petition.

8. In the light of the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberly to the petitioners to f,rle fresh Contempt Case against respondent No.4 in terms of order dated 21 .04.2023 in Conternpt Case No.1963 of 2017 and also file suit against respondent No.5 and its members. Liberly is also granted to respondent No.4 to lodge a complaint against the petitioners or take action against them on thc allegation of claiming right over the subject properly basing on a fake Final Patta Cerlificate vide --|tlr 5 R.C.No. 83 3 9 / 1 97 2, dated 28.01 .1998. In the circumsrances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' liD B. REKHA RANI NT REGIST A.S To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secreta of Telangana.

2. The Collector, [,4ancherial District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lVancherial, District. 4. The Tahsildar, Naspur lt/andal, lt/ancherial, District. E TION OFFICER ) Hyderabad, State 5 6 7 The President, Telangana Non Gazetted Officers Association, Office at lvlancherial, It/ancherial District. One CC to [,rls. NASEET\,4 ARA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI G.N/ADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNIUENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 9 BSR GJ Two CD Copies t9 HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 ORDER WP.No.19006 of 2024 q J ,te U. \o, 1 )\, 29 0[I zilI a ,f.s "ar DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS