Sri.Chakali Raju 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 a Writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt/andamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly that of the action of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 at the instance of respondent No.4 in seeking to disturb petitioner possession and dispossess petitioner from schedule property without cancellation of assignment or without issuing proceedings for redemption under Act 3/77 or without issuing any notice is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and provisions of 3177 of lhe 's Act and consequently direct the respondents more partic I arly respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 not to dispossess me without followin(l jue process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the c i the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m. the respondents 2 & 3 not to disturb my possession over tf ( 1-2i3, Road No.1, Sangameshwara Colony, Banswadz Kamareddy District, Telangana State, exiting over on a piec( 120 Sq Yards, Plot No. 22611 , in Survey No.895, without foll cumstances stated in y be pleased to direct premises No. No. 6- Town and Mandal, of land admeasuring rwing due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. CHENNAIAH, REPRESET TING SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN t, IBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUM;\ t, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. RAKESH KUMAi , AGP REPRESENTING FOII GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR SCHOOL EDU{l {TION The Court made the following: ORDER :*,: -JF THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.22834 oF 2020 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issue a Writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly that of the action of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 at the instance of respondent No.4 in seeking to disturb my possession and dispossess me from schedule property without cancellation of assignment or without issuing proceedrngs for redemption under Act 3/77 or without issuing any notrce is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal ard violative of Artrcle 14, 19(l)(e), 2l & 30O-A of the Constitution of India and provisions of 3177 of the Act and consequently direct the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 & respondent No.3 not to dispossess me without following due process of law and pass sucll other suitable order or orders ..."

2. Heard Mr.B.Chinnaiah, learned counsel representing Mr.Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Gover-nment Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1 , Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3, Iearned Government Pleader for School Education representing respondent No.4.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Muslim by birth, fell in love with one Chakali Kassyawa and married her about 18 years back; that the petitioner converted himself and was re-named as Chakali Raju; that the petitioner 2 was named as Liyakath AIi when he was born to ris parents; that the then respondent no.3, Nizamabad District r r rder took socio- economic survcy. and assigned plot No.226/ 1 in urvey No.895 of Banswada Torvn bearing house site patta ,'de proceedings No. RDS. No. D 1464 I 2OO4 and that the saicl r ssignment was burdened with certain conditions; that the petitioner had constructed a small thatched house to which plc mises No.6-1-2 /3 is assigned, Road No. 1, Sangameshwara Crr on/, Banswada Town and Mand:Ll, Kamareddy District; that thc 1 etitioner was in possession of the house and paying property 1r<; ttrat towards south side of the petitioner's p1ot, there was rL setback and a habitation mostlv occupied by the member:i of "ERUKALA COMMUNITY" rvhose main avocation was rearirr _: pigs; that after the death of the petitioner's wife, the petitioner l.ad reconverted to Islam and renamed as Liyakath Ali; that on t'7.1 1.2020 and O9.ll.2O2O, the officials of respondent Nos.2 rnd 3 tried to dispossess the petitioner from his property statin] that he was an encroacher. Aggrieved by the same, the petitior.r( r preferred the present Writ Petition

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sul> nits that the petitioner is put to suffer severe mental agony an I hardship due .1. 3 I I I i i i I i i : I I i to the acts of respondent Nos.2 and 3, in trying to dispossess the petitroner from the subject property. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, by furnishing the copy of written instructions passed on to the learned Government Pleader by respondent No.3, contends that survey No.895 is classified as Government land and the House Patta Certificate with respect to the land admeasuring i20 sq. yrds in Plot No.226 situated in sun ey No.895 of Sangameshwara Colony, Road No.1, Banswada Town was issued in favour of one Smt.Rajamani, W/o. Dattaiah

6. He further states that the petitioner had illegally encroached the Government Land and established as Hut without prior permission from the competent authority, by creating false House Site patta Certificate against him. He states that the petitioner has no right over the subject property arrd seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition 7 . Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel ald upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court without making any observations on the merits or demerits of the case, is inclined to direct the petitioner to I I 4 : approach respondent No.3 along with all the necessary documents relying on which the relief is sc,r ght for by the petitioner, witl'ri, four (4) weeks from toda5r. Ir-r 1 rrn. respondent No.3 is directecl to examine the said doclLtr:nts and pass appropriate orders, as per law, as expeditiousl., zts ltossible, bv puttrng al1 the effected parties on notice and ry affording an opportunity o1' hearing. B. With the atrove direction, this Writ petitiorr is disposed of No costs. Miscellar-reous Petitions, pending if an5z, sh:r I stand closed \ Sd/-M.NAGAMAN| / $sr; srANT REGISTRAR . ./ l- _ //TRUE COPYII \ SECTION OFFICER To, l The Principre secretarv, Municipar Administration and U r an Deveropment, secretariat. The Srare bf f_etanjana,-H;j;;;iai, " , ILi,,S"rrissioner, rire aansGol M;;;i;;ffi Ar Ba,, wada. Kamareddy i li8,li l 31 5,i : : f,iidlfl# tiu'$:fu ffi ,,;r;qffi ' ,!ffi":"?::,H:rGP ro; Reve;u;l u"i'sh b:,,:"'1Y,i/th" st,," r r reransana, at 8. _Two CC to'The bp for t ;,,itc,%t 5i1f,I*:s!F^*,_:H ;,ffi li; I :":''. Kt iXi A: 3ifi: :y:li b:i ff t i::,*3f :?::., "'ifi"Hf,iX u,, p m e n, H g h c. u. +?I#?e .' TJ PMK (+ HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 ORDER WP.No.22834 of 2020 /t. /,' :, ,'a.) \ \ a. 14 lr:[ ZUf DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t$- \z- 1-