N/arkam Ankulamma v. The State cf Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oi 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 padicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in lnterfering into the peaceful possession and cultivation on the land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.4.10 Gts in Survey No.85/165, which is situated at Konetipur Village, Vanguru tVlandal, Nagarkurnool District and trying to transfer the land of the Petitioner on the name of Respondent No.5 and trying to disposes the Petitioner by colluding with the Respondent No.5 without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice consequently direct the Respondent No.4 not to interfere into the peaceful possession and peaceful agricultL -al operation and not to threaten the Petitioner to handover her land to the Respc r dent No.5 and not to transfer her land to an extent of Ac-4.10 Gts in Survey No.B5/165, whrch rs situated at Konetipur Village, Vanguru Mandal, Nagarkurno. District on the name of Respondent No.5. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the crr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nrir. be pleased to direct the Respondent No4 not to interfere into the peacefur pos: ession and peacefur agricultural operation and not to threaten the petitioner to ha.lover her Iand to the Respondent No.5 and not to transfer her land to an exto t ot Ac.4.1o Gts rn Survey No.B5/165, which is situated at Konetipur viIa,l r Vanguru lvandar, Nagarkurnool District on the name of Respondent No.5 per Jing disposar of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Devarakona Balaiah @ china Baraiah. S/o. Ramaiah @ china r amaiah, Aqed about 19 ygq'. occ Agricut-ttur" mo koneiipu;;,Vi;J"',%il;r,iffi;j.'ffiEl[ii"", District. AND 1 Smt- Markam Ankulamma W/o. Eddaiah alias Eedaiah I cled about 50 vears Occ. Agricutture, R/o. Konetipuram Vittag",- c, ,i,llprffv'"M;il;]l Nagarkurnool District. ...PETITIONt: ?/sth RESPONDENT ) ...RESPO i\ DENT/PETITIONER ,. Rep. by its principal I ecretary, Revenue The State oi Telanoana, Depa rrmen r, Secrela riaj e ui io ing.'Seci6t, iiit, HvjJ[L;,, 3. The District Collector, Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool Drstri: 4 The Revenue Divisionar officer, Karwakurthy Division, N. 3arkurnoor District. 5. The Tahsildar, Vanguru tVlandal, Nagarkurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPON[) :NTS 1 to 4 in W.p Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court on 13-8-2025 in W.P.No. 23834 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary ccsts. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUHAS CHARY, REPRESENTING SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: Ms. SNEHITHA, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M. AMARAGANI MALSOOR The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN( iANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VEII ]GOPAL UIRIT PETITION No.23834 of 2O2! , DATE OF ORDER: o4.12.2o25, BETWEEN: Markam Ankulamma AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and 4 others Petitioner Jl:spondents : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Art Lr le 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relie', s:- "...to issue an appropriate writ orc ( clirection more particularly one in the na, Writ of Mandamus declaring the action r Respondent No.4 in interfering intrr peaceful possession and cultivation or land of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac Gts in Survey No.85/ 165 which is situat Konetipur Village, Vanguru Ma Nagarkurnool District and trying to tra the land of the Petitioner on the na:r Respondent No.5 and trying to dispose Petitioner by colluding with the Respc r No.S without issuing any notice and wi following the due process of law is il tre of f the 4.to :d at odal, Le of .dent egal, I 2 arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, i5, 2I and 300-4, ol Constitution of India and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice consequently direct the Respondent No.4 not to interfere into the peaceful possession and peaceful agricultural operation and not to threaten the Petitioner to handover her land to the Respondent No.S and not to transfer her land to an extent of Ac.4. 10 Gts in Survey No.85/ 165 which is situated at Konetipur Village, Vanguru Mandal, Nagarkurnool District on the name of Respondent No 5..."

2. Heard Mr.Suhas Chary, learned counsel representing Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Snehitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly there are title disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondent No.5, which leads to filing counter writ petitions. He would further submit that the present writ petition has been hled by the petitioner herein seeking to declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in interfering with the peaceful 3 possession and cultivation on the land of thc l'etitioner to an extent of Ac.4.10 gts in Survey No.85/ 1 I l, which is situated at Konetipur Village, Vanguru Mandai, Nagarkurnool District. He would submit -hat the petitioner belongs to backward community an<l landless person and was allotted the land in qu: ;tion ln Sy.No.85/ 165 and is cultivating the said land f r tm 2Ol9 onwards. Accordingly, he made a representat ( n to the official respondents requesting to mutate the ne r ee of the petitioner in the revenue records and to grant I atta. He would further submit that the name of respon,l :nt No.5 is reflecting in the revenue records under Lave.: Li Rules He would submit that the petitioner 1S bonafide purchaser from respondent No.S, who had ex<, uted an agreement of sale under Sada Binama. The peti ioner by submitting agreement of sale, executed by re s pondent No.5, and got regularized the land in questior, in her favour and a patta has already been grante < to the petitioner uide patta No.194 and pattedar passt ook has also been issued uide passbook No.350419 to ,r r extent of Ac.4.10 guntas ln Sy.No.85/ 165, sitrr rted at 4 Konetipur Village, Vanguru Manda,l, Nagarkurnool District.

4. He would submit that while the petitioner is in possession, respondent No.5 is trying to interfer with the property 1n question. He would also submit that respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.9137 of 2025, which is disposed of on 26.O3.2025 by dispensing with the notice to the petitioner, wherein this Court has passed the order as under "...3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.Somaiah Ezra Sastri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to respondent No.4 is d.ispensed with.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment has submitted that the petitioner has sold the assigned land in favour of respondent No.4 and therefore the proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Act for cancellation of the assignment as the petitioner has violated the terms of the assignment patta.

5. [n view of the above submissions and since respondent No.3 has issued the notice uide No.B/95612024, dated 27.11.2024, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if respondent No.3 is directed to complete the enquiry initiated under the provisions of the Act uide notice 5 No.B/95612024, dated 27.11.2024, after rss- ng notice to the petitioner and respondent No.4 an( to pass a reasoncd order and communicate the sanLr to the parties, within a period of eight (08) weeks r )m the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations, this Writ P(f t I on is disposed of. There shal1 be no order as to costs Therefore, he would seek to protect thc ir terest of the petitioner and seek to pass appropriate ord( r s.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleir ler Assignment would submit that the order of this; Court in W.P.No.9137 of 2025 dated 26.03.2025 s hall be complied with and necessary action wr uld be contemplated by the offrcial authority in due < ourse of time in respect of the notice issued earlier vi< e notice No.Bl956/2024, dated 27.11.2024. Since the -rotice is ordered to be issued to the petitioner as weli as r nofficial respondents, further action would be taken by tf e official respondents. Hence, she would seek to pass aJ,l ,ropriate orders

6. Learned counsel for unofficial responder., s would submit that the notices have been issued in cc I rpiiance 6 to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9137 of 2025, wherein the unofhcial respondent had replied to the said notice, but the petitioner has not been responded SO far; despite received the notice to the petitioner herein. Therefore, he would seek to pass appropriate orders

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and learned counsel for unofficial respondent, a-fter careful perusal of the materials placed before this Court, this Court finds that W.P.No.9137 of 2025 had disposed of on 26.O3.2025 directing the respondent No.3 Tahsildar to issue notices to both the parties therein. Since the parties to this writ petition are also the parties to W.P. No.9137 of 2025 and since the notice has already been issued to the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to obtain explanation if any from both the parties and grant sufficient opportunity of hearing to them, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, S 7 expeditiously as possible, preferably, within :r period of ninety (90) working days from the date of r r :cipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, the par rs to this writ petitioner are directed to maintain :; ,rtus quo obtaining as on today in respect of the subjer: property in all respects, tiil passing of appropriate orde rs by the official respondents.

8. With the above directions, this writ r:tition is disposed of. There shall be no order as ro costs Miscellaneous applications, if any penrt ng, shall also stand closed. SD/ . A.H ( GOW INr RI SHANKAR REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Departm Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. e \crroN oFFrcER S 1 rte of Telangana,

2. The District Collector, Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool Dislr c . 3. The Revenue Divisional officer, Kalwakurthy Division, N: garkurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Vanguru lr,4andal, Nagarkurnool District 5 One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court for the [; ]te of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI M. AMARAGANI MALSOOR, Advocate l( 'PUCI B. Two CD Copies MP GJP {IGH COURT DATE D:0411212025 () () ,23 ut Z 20fi I t t * Or:r. --, -h RDER WP.No ,13834 of 2025 DTSPOSING OF THE \A/?IT PETITION WII'{OUT COSTS \\ a