High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be oieased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of v,/rit of Mandamus declaring the actions of the 4th respondent rn taking possession of the land in Sy.No.384 of lndrial Revenue Village, Bhudan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District without following the due process il law as illegal, contrary and against the principles of natural justice and to stay all proceedings of the 4th respondent in laying the cart way in Sy No 384 of Irrilrial Revenue Village, Bhudan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir Distrrct orly. i, r, llo: 1 0F 2D2.0 Petition Lrnder Section 15'1 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavrt frled rn support of the petition, the High Co 11 rnry be pleased to stay all further proceedrngs of the 4th respondent in respe t of the laying of cart /. ]i/ rn Sy Nt. I B4 of lndrial Revenue Village, Bhudan 'ochampally firlandal, \'erdadrr Bhonllr Drstrct of the writ petitioner only witl- r ut following the due o'lcess of lau ..rendrng drsposal of the writ petition. i;t NO: 1 OF 2J?.5 B+tween: l The Stzrte of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Drs: r :t Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District. -? The Revr:nue llivisronal Officer, Choutuppal, Yadadri [] rongir Dtstnct. 4 The Tah:;rldar, Bhoodan Pochampalle Mandal, Yadadri 3hongir Drstrtct. ...PETITIONER AI.ID Sri Varala Jaipal Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, Ag R/o.H N<., 1-12'1 Shivareddygudem Village, P Bhonqrr Drstrict - 508 284 ed 32 1:ars, Occ Agnculture. ochanrl ally Mandal, Yadadri 12 Mekala )anjeeva Reddy, S/o.Malla Reddy, Aged 5l; yrs, Occ. Agrrculture, R/o 1-143, Shivareddy Gudem, Pochampally Marr al, Yadadri Bhongir District (Responclerrt No.2 is not necessary party to this pet tion) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircumstances stated il the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High C( r rt may be pleased to v;rc;ate the rnterim orders dt. 08.O1 .2021 passed in A.No.1 of 2020 tn rt';P No 24246 of 2O2O and dismiss the Writ Petition, pend r g disposal of the writ c':-:tttion Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NADELLA VENKATESWAi q RAO flrunsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENIJ : Counsel for thr-, Respondent No.S: SRI ABDUL WAHID BLI HA The Court made the following: ORDER r' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY UIRIT PETITION No. 24246 of2O2O ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in taking possession of the iand in Sy.No.384 of Indrial Revenue Village, Bhudan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and for a consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri N.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Abdul Wahid Basha, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. 'Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.3.O4 guntas in Sy.No.384/EE of Indrial Revenue Village, Bhudan Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District; that petitioner also succeeded to the lands in Sy.No.382 and 383 of his father altd he has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the same since 1984.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.378 of Indrial i i i , ! I I r 2 Revenue Village, Bhudal Pochampally Mandal, 'adadri Bhongir District; that the lands in Sy.Nos.382, 383, 3t 4 and 378 are adjacent to each other; and that the entire land ir the said survey numbers is private land and occupied by various 1z rmers. While so. respondent No.5 in collusion with the resporr Ient authorities intends to lay cart r'vay through the petitioner's 1zu Ld in Sy.No.384; and that the authorities without following the du r process of law, are intending to lay cart u,ay in petitioner's land o I y for the benefit of respondent No.5

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner furth: - submits that respondent No.4 in collusion with respondent \,1o.5 conducted panchanama of petitioner's land in Sy.No.384 on :5.07.2018 for a provisional cart way from Sy.Nos.3B4 to 372: and that the authorities rvithout lal,ing the complete cart way fr: n Sy.Nos.384 to 372 ate intending to lay cart way only 1n peli ioner's land in Sy.No.3B4 leaving the land to be acquired in Sy.No ;.378,379,381, 3BO and 372. Aggrt eved by the same, present writ p rtition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner wou I I submit that respondent No.5 has access to his lands from S y.No.380 which leads to Rar.ulapalli village. However, withou - exploring this alternate access, the respondent No.5 is influencil 1 the officials of 3 revenue authorities to lay cart way only in the petitioner's land and finally prayed to allow the writ petition.

7. Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 contending that as per village map a cart track is existing since long back from Gousekonda village and passing through the Sy.Nos.372, 380, 381, 378, 385, 387, including Sy.No.384 of Indiryal Village and the same is being used by the farmers; and that the petitioner herein intentionally defaced the existing cart track in his Sy.No.384 and converted the extent of ca-rt track land into agricultural land and raised paddy crop. It is further contended that when the petitioner has not allowed anyone to pass through his land in Sy.No.3B4, respondent No.S hled a complaint before respondent No.4 alleging encroachment and defacing of the cart track by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said complaint, respondent No.4 inspected the site and conducted panchanama, as per which the cart track has been in existence on the ground for a long back and is passing through S"Nos.372, 380, 381, 378, 3A4, 385 and 387 and it is contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits. A copy of village map is also filed along with counter affidavit.

8. karned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the authorities acted upon the complaint submitted by \ 4 respondent No.S and conducted ir-rspection ald p anchanama and found that a cart track exists and passing thr-,qgfu Sy.No.3B4, which belongs to the petitioner; that it was foun I that petitioner had defaced the cart track and was not allowing t re other farmers to use and pass through the said cart track. Ht: further submits that the village map placed on record clearly estr blishes that the cart track is passing through S.Nos.372, 380, 38 , 37a, 384, 385 and 387 and therefore, writ petition is devoid of me "its and liable to be dismissed.

9. Counter has been filed on beha,if of respon,l :nt No.5 stating that cart way has been in. existence for a long time br the benefit of farmers and that the petitioner herein cannot de ey its usage by other farmers. It is stated that respondent No.S . Las submitted a compiaint to respondent No.4, pursuart to which 'espondent No.4 inspected the subject land and conducted a panct anarna with the assistance of village elders as per which cart way .s existing since long back. It is further averred that the autho ities have only restored the existing cart way and therefore, thr: writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismisr ed. 5

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.S submitted that the petitioner cannot prevent the usage of cart way by other farmers and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 1 1 . A perusal of record would disciose that the panchanama conducted by respondent No.4 as well as village map discloses that the cart track is existing since long time in the v lage which is passing through S.Nos.372, 380, 381, 37g, 3gS arld 3g7 including Sy.No.384 belonging to the petitioner. It is the specific case of official respondents as well as respondent No.S that cart track is existing since long time a,d the sarne is being used for the benefit of farmers for their necessities. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that alternate access is available to the land of respondent No.S and therefore, he can make use of the same; a,'d that the revenue officiars are laying cart track only in the land belonging to the petitioner without laying it through the other survey numbers. However, the petitioner failed to place any material on record to substantiate his contentions.

12. In the light of the material placed on record, in considered opinion of this court that the petitioner has no right to deface the cart track and deny the access of the cart track by the other farmers. The material placed on record, particularlv the D ! 6 panchanarna conducted by the authorities shows that the cart track which is in existence for a long time has only been restored. Therefore, this court does not find arry merits in the r,rit petition.

13. Accordingly, the rvrit petition is dismissed As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, f any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// ;D/.A.V.S. -tll :PUTY SAD GISTRAR SECTtON OFFTCER 1 2 3 One CC to SRI NADELLA VENKATESWARA RAO, Adv: ;are tOpUCl One CC to SRI ABDUL WAHTD BASHA, Advocate [OpU( ] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the {i ate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 Two CD Copies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 2111112025 t t ORDER WP.No.24246 of 2020 -.\ y\t- lTAr clr F ,,( C) +, )c 0 $ itB ?ir26 * Sp.rrt'{'r t,// ,r.ti DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS v'( C."