1. Kawampally Budamma v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of fourth respondent in issuing impugned eviction notice bearing No. 8/348/2017 dated 08.O3.2017 unilaterally holding that the petitioners are encroachers of Government land and seeking to evict them from their assigned land in Sy.No.439 of Chinthakunta Village, Karimnagar Mandal (now Kothapalli mandal) as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 12147 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the issue of the imprugned evi3tion notice No.8/348/2017 dated 08.03.20'17 issued by fourth respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petitron. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SAWAM REDDY, for MTS.K.V.RAJASREE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HABEEBUDDIN, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITIONN0.9806 0F 20L7 ORDER:

1. This Writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the eviction Notice bearing No.Bl348l2OL7 dated OB.O3.2OI7 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.OO guntas in S.No.439 of Chinthakunta Village of Kothapalli Manda_l.

2. Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.K.V.Rajasree, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Habeebuddin, learned Assistart Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the record

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally an extent of Ac.2.OO guntas of tand in S.No.439, situated at Chinthakunta Village of Kothapalli Mandal was assigned to the father_ in-law of the petitioner No. 1 vide patta Certificate 2 SK,J No.A3l5976/6178 dated 28.02.1980. After death of father-in-law of the petitioner No.1 thc respondr:nt_ authorities have issueC resumption proceedings A.p Assigned Larrds (Prohibition of Transfers) Ac:t, 1977 (for short 'POT Act, 1977,) and the said resumpl.ion proceedings under challenged before this Court in W.P.No.29O3 of 2OO7. Initially, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition on

15.O2.2OO7. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed Writ Appeal vide W.A.No.1gB of 2(tO7 and the said Appea,l was allowed on O2.O9.2O22 setting aside thc impugned resumption order holding that t.he resumption order is not based on any law ar:d the same was quashed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitionr:rs would further submit that during the pendency of writ appeal No.188 of 2OO7 , the respondent_authorities issued impugned Eviction Notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 19OS on Og.O3.2Ol7. 3 SK,J Immediately, the petitioners approached this Court and filed instant writ petition and this Court granted interim orders on 2O.O3.2O17. Therea-fter, the writ appeal was allowed on O2.O9.2O22. There is no dispute that the suit schedule land is assigned land and pending resumption proceedings under POT Act, 1977 the respondents issued impugned eviction notice under the Land Encroachment Act. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the said resumption proceedings and impugned notice is also liable to be set aside and therefore requested to a-llow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Eviction Notice issued to the petrtloners 5 The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4 would submit that the Sarpanch of G.P.Chinthakunta of Kothapa-lli Mandal filed a complaint against the petitioners that they constructing compound wall by encroaching art extent, ;l SK,J ol Ac. 1.25 guntas of Government lald in Sy.No.43!t alrl the V.R.O., of Chinthakunta cluster alsc, submitt.ed a report on 22.O2.2O1T conhrming the cncroachrnent being made by the petitioners and in view of the same, a Notice was issued to the petitioners or 08.03.i2017 under Section 7 of the Land Encroachrnent Act, 1905 to show cause as to why they should not be evicted jiom the Govcrnment land under Section 6 of the Act, 1,105, tailing whicl-r the action rvil be taken to evict them Iiom the subject land without any notice. Tht: said notice was not a final order, but it is an opportunity of filing the explanation by the petitioners. The petitioners instead of submitting reply, approached this Court ,and there are no merits in the writ petition and requestetl to dismiss the wrir petition. 6 After hearing both sides and on perusing the record this Court is of the considered vierv that admittedly the father-in-law of the petitionr:r No. 1 was assigned two acres of land in Sy.No.439, situated at 5 SK,J Chinthakunta Village of Karimangar Mandal, vide Patta Certilrcate dated D.Dis.No.A3 159761 178 dated

28.02.1980. After demise of the father-in-law of the petitioner No.1 the respondent-authorities have issued resumption proceedings under POT Act, 1977. Challenging the same, the petitioner hled W.P.No.2903 of 2OO7 and the said writ petition was dismissed on

15.09.2OO7. Being aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioners hled W.A.No.188 of 2OO7 and the said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on O2.O9.2O22 by setting aside the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court. Further, once the land was assigned to the father-in-law of the petitioner No.1 and the Division Bench of this Court aside the resumption ordcrs under POT Act, 1977 the question of the petitioners encroaching the suit schedule land does not arise. In view of the same, the impugned Eviction Notice is liable to be set aside. d I 6 .5X,J

7. In view of the above hnding, this writ petitio:r is a-ilowed by sctting aside impugned Evit ri,.ln Norice No.B/3a8/2017 dated 08.03.20 17 issu,:d by the respondent lrlo.4. No order as to costs.

8. Misceilanecus applications, if any, pt:nding 1n this Writ Petition shall also stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHTEF JUSTTCE APARESH KUMAR StNGH, on this WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/- S, MALLIKARJUNA RAO *t'tt;'r;flISTRAR FFICER To,

1. The Principal secretary Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariar, state of lelangana, Hyderabad - 500 022

2. The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar 4. The Tahsildar, lvandal Revenue office Karimnagar Mandal now Kothapalli Mandal) Karimnagar District

5. One CC to SRI K V.RAJASREE, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNIVENT, High Court for the State of Telangana.

7. Two CD Copies BSK PVL HIGH COURT 0 DATED:0910712025 I I -:=:-\ -.' - ,,.s s; ll-\r - -,6.;\ . -,,\ B B SEP 20zl a: ORDER WP.No.9806 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Nl8lrd ir.