SRI T v. RAMESH

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent l,lo.3 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful possession in respect of the hnd in Sy.No.13/A and 13/AA admeasuring Ac. 4.20 gts., each situated at Bieinepalli (Z) village, Wazedu Mandalarn, Mulugu District, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the Statute, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Artictes 19, 21 and 300-4 of ttle Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to take any coercive steps without following the due process of Law. I I i ! i ! j : i L : I ; I a l lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the t;i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nti y be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 herein not to dispossess or in any mi) peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in res 1 13/A and '13lAA admeasuring Ac. 4.20 gts., each situated et Wazedu Mandalam, Mulugu District, pending disposal of tht the interest of justice. rner interfere with the act of the land Sy.No. Bijenepalli (Z) village, main Writ Petition, in Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T. V. RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI H. RAKESH KUMAR, l( ;P REPRESENTING GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HON'BLE SRI J(,STICE E.V, VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITIu\I{ No.22933 OF 2O2O ORDER . This Writ Petition is frled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:- '... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one io the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No 3 in threatening to dispossess the petitoners from their lawful possession in resFct of the l,and in Sy-No- 13/A and l3/AA admeasuring Ac.4.20 gts , each situatcd at Bieinepalli (Zl villace, wazedu Mandalam, Mulugu District, without issuing any notice and \rrithout following the prmedure contemplated under the Statute, as being itlegal, arbitrary' unjust and viotative of Articles t9, 2l and 3OO-A o[ the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No-3 not to take any coercive steps wittrorit foltowing the due process of Law, and to Srant such other relief or relids...'

2. Hgar-"d . Mr.T.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.H.Rakesh Kumar, leamed Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners namely Sri Surath Ganapathi Rao was the absolute owner and possessor o[ the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.9.O3 gts in survey No.13 situated at Bijenepalli (Zl vrllage, Wazedu Mandal, Khammam District, having acquired the same from his ancestors who were in possession since time immemorial. Later, the father of . I 2 petitioners was in the peaceful possession ar cl enjoyment of the said property; tl.at the pattadar pass borr : and title deed was also mutated in his name; that th,: father of the petitioners nartitioned tJle propert5r betweer. the petitioners herein and the petitioners got land admeas uring Acs.4.2O gts., each. While so, the Government with i n intention to uplift the farmers introduced R5rthu Bandhu ;cheme and in that connection ttre respondent authorities r tve imposed a condition to produce the new patta.dar pass book and tirle deed. Upon submission of the application in pr:scribed Form, the respondent authorities have issued he individual pattadar pass books and title deeds in the narr : of petitioners and since then, they are in the peaceful : rssession and enjoyment of their respective lands; that I I LO-L2-2O2O respondent No.3 along with his subordinate r came to the subject land high-handedly and demanded the petitioners to vacate the subject land, without issuing ar y notice and thereby threatened to dispossess them. AgJ ieved b-v the same, the petitioners liled the present Writ petit cn.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners subnr ts that action of respondent No.3 in illegally interfering witl the peaceful 3 possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject properly, without issuing any notice is illegal and arbitrary' Hence, hb seeks indulgence ,-rf ttris Court to pass a direction to oflicial respondents not to resort to an;' illega-l activity with respect to the subject land, without following the due process I I of law.

5. karned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that the offrcial respondents have not resorted to any such illegal activity against the petitioners and this Writ Petition is filed under misconception' Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the leamed counsel and on perusal of the material available on record' this Court, without making any observations on the possession of the petitioners, is of the opinion that in the event the ollicial respondents trying to interfere with the subject property, they shall strictly follow the procedure as contemplated under law. I / 4 7' Accordingly, this writ petition is disp, red of. No costs. Needless to mention, the petitioners are g9 anted liberty to work out the remedies as available under lav, Misceiianeous petitions pending, if ;r ry, shall stanci i, closed. //TRUE COPY// Tol sd/- si. MALLIKARJUNA RAO /Al stsTANT REGISTRAR i \ SECTION oFFtcER I tetangana, Hyderabad. t. Jlrg__elnciOat Secretary, Revenue Department, b 2. The District Coltector, Mulugu District, Mulugu. 3. The Tahsildar, Wazedu Mandal, Mulugu District. 4. One CC to Sri T. V. Ramesh, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to Gp for Revenue, High Court for the Hyderabad [OUTI e :retariat, The State of itate of Telangana, at

6. Two CD Cooies T J/MP ry, I i I I I I I I I ! I , ! I I I I I I ! I I I i I I I I I i I I I I i I ! I ! I i i \ i HIGH COURT DATED: 1 I 10912025 ORDER WP.No.22933 of 2020 ) o s. ( * trE,S14 r"[ B 2t]7[ z ( {"gv DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q a 1 "!