1. N.Devidas (Died as per LR v. 1. The Joint Collector

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the 1st respondent in F3/2007-F3/87/ROR 12007 dated 29.7.2009 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : -- W.P.NO:7818 OF 2009 Between:

1. N.Devidas, S/o.Subramanyam lyer R/o.H.No.1-12-45 and 46, Jambikunta, lr/ ed a k.

2. N.Venugopal, S/o.Late N.Devidas, aggd 55 years, Occ : Business, R/o.H.No.1-1 2-46, Bus Depot Road, [\,4eda] Town and District-

3. N. Subrahmanyam,, S/o. Late N. Devidas, Aged about 53 years, Occ; Advocate, R/o. H.No. 1-6-6614, Subhash Nagar, lVlahabubnagar town and Drstrict. (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 on record as LR of the deceased Petttioner No.1 as per Court Order dt 09 06.2024 in l.A.No.1/2024). ....PETITIONERS AND

1. The District Collector, Medak, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2. The Tahsildar. Medak lMandal. f\rledak District. 3. The Municipality, Ir,4edak, represented by its, Commissioner, [\Iedak District. 4. T. [\ilusalaiah, S/o.Venkanna, H.No.1-12-5lP, Jambikunta Street, Medak Town, Medak District.

5. T.Ganesh, S/o.T.i\4usalaiah, H.No.1-12-5lP, Jambikunta Street, I\4edak Town, It/edak District. .....RESPONDENTS 4 THE HON 'BLE SRI JT,ISTICE N.V.S HRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition Nos. 18844 and 78 18 of 2OO9 coMMON ORDER: Since both the Petitions are hled by the same petitioner, they are heard together and decided by way of this common order.

2. W.P.No.7818 of 2009 is filed questioning the action of respondent No.2 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring an extent of 340 sq yards, situated at Jambikunta street behind the premises bearing No.11245 and 46 having recommended for allotment on market price without notice and opportunity as illegal, arbitrary' malafide intentional and opposed to the principles of naturai justice

3. W.P.No. 18844 of 2OO9 is f,rled questtonrng the order of respondent No'1 in F3 19153 l2OO7- F3/87/ROR l2OO7, d,ated29'O7 '2009 and to quash the same by holding the same as illegal, malafide and 2 without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 1971.

4. Brief facts as stated in these q,rit petitions are that the petitioner is a retired railrn,ay trmployee worked as catering Manager. His son is running a hotel in an open space of about 340 square yards, ir-r the name and style as "Venue Mess,,. 'Ihe saicl land belongs to the Municipality and the petitioner clairns that the said land was in his possession and enjoyment for the last 40 years. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons made reltresentations to the Municipality requesting to seli the said open land at market price. Petitioner,s furthcr case is that the Municipality accepted the request and passed Resolution No.59, dated 28.LO.1997, agreeing to seil the land at market value. pursuant l.o the said resolution, nothing materialized and during the said period, there 'was threat of dispossession, hence the petitioner filed W.p.No.1O5O4 of 200 1 and this Court ,* J granted interim direction on 23.O5.2OO1, directing the respondents therein not to dispossess petitioner illegally and therea-fter this Court dismissed the said writ petition on 05.11.2008. Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner hled W.A.No. ll7 of 2009. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Tahasildar Medak Mandal, Medak, had addressed a letter to the Municipal Commissioner (respondent No.3 in W.P. No.78 18 of 2O09) on 21.06.2008, to examine the feasibility of petitioner's apptication as per G.O. Ms. No.166 dated O5.06.2OO8. Thereafter, the District Collector also addressed a letter to Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Medak, on 18.07.2008, asking his remarks and this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the basis of the developments taken in the year, 2OO8. Thereafter, petitioner hled W.P.No.7818 of 2009, questioning the attempt of highhanded dispossession by respondent Nos.3 and 4, with the help of the Tahasildar and this Court granted interim direction on 21 .O4.2OO9, directing the ,,, .,] I fiF.'t respondents not to dispossess the petiLioner from the subject part of the land.

5. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in W.P. No. 18844 of 2OO9 haver obtained an order from the Tahsildar granting patta itr their name in respect of 216 square yards in Sy. No.567/1 at Jammikunta of IVIedak Town, which forms perrt of the total extent of 346 square yards. It is further submitted that beforc the Tahsildar, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, claiming to be iandless poor, have obtained house site pattas. Qucstioning the grant of said house site pattas, the Revenr-re Divisional Officer, Medak, after conducting enquiry, hcld that respondent Nos.3 ancl .4 are not landless poor persons as they have not filed any material ir.r support of their case and, cancclled the patta by :rn order dat.ed O7.O5.2OOZ and, thereafter, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed revision before respondent No.1, and the sarne was allowed on

29.07.2009. ,,ii- q!:ia ,/ 5

6. Questioning the sarne, W.P.No. 1a844 of 2009 is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 failed to see that whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 are landless poor persons and whether they are entitled for any pattas certiltcates and ignored the same and proceeded to decide the revision on a different angle.

8. No counter has been filed by the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached this Court for non implementation of the letter of the Tahsildar, Medak Mandal dated 2i.06.2OO8, based on application for regularizations of encroachment. In the letter, the Tahsildar, Medak requested the Commissioner Municipality, Medak to consider the application of the petitioner in Sl.No.2 in Sy.No.567, to the extent of 300 Sq.Yds and sought for the consent of the r 6 Commissioner Municipality for taking further steps and to submit the proposal to the District Collector for regularization only. It is further submitted that only resolution was passed by Nagar Panchayat Office, Medak on 28.10.1997 , vide resolution No.59 wherein it was observed that the said persons are in occupation of the lands since 4O years, which was not utilised lor the public purpose and they have encroached the land, in which the petitioner's name was shown at S1.No.8 to an extent of 346-56 sq.yards and same u,as placed before the Nagar Panchayat Ofhee, Medak and it was unanimously resolved to sell the land at market rate to the applicants, ald the proposal has been sent lor ratification by the District Collector. Thereafter, no proceedings have been initiated for regularising the said plot in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that the order passed by the Joint Collector clated 29.O7.2OO9 contains no specific findings to the effect that pattas were allotted to the revision petitioners. ^ft 7

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.7818 of 2009, representing the Municipality, Medak, submitted that only resolution was passed in support of the petitioner. However, no orders have been passed till date for a,llotment of the subject land to the petitioner. In view of the sarne, the Commissioner has no right to proceed in the said case. 1 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner died on 16.05.2O21 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were brought on record as his legal heirs in W.P.No.7S i 8 of 2OO9 and petitioner No.2 is brought on record as his legal heir in W.P.No.laa44 of 2OO9.

12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents and learned Standing Counsel for Municipality Medak _t 8

13. The revision petitioners (Revision petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.No.78844 of 2OO9 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.78 1B of 2OO9) filed revision under Section 9 of A.P.ROR Lancl and Pattedar Pass Books Act l97l against the orders of RDO Salgareddy passed in hle No.D/220512006, dated 07.OS.2OOT in respecr of land in Sy.No.567/7 adrneasuring 216 Sq. yds situated at Jambikunta of Medak Town, Medak District.

14. It is the case of the revision petitioners that the Government had allotted two house sites to them and patta certifical.es were issued vide proceedings No.B/1458 193, dated 25.06.1993 and respondents being influenced persons when trying to dispossess them, the revision pctitioner hled O.S.No.17 o12011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Medak ancl the said suit was decreed in their favour. Then the respondents (the petitioner No.l in W.p.Nos. 1gg44 ol- 2OO9 and 78 18 of 2OQ9, N.Devidas) filed an appeal before RDO Medak vide proceedings No.B/2205/2006. The .{$ Revision Petitioners submitted that though the respondent No.1 N.Devidas herein was a proposed purchaser, there is no record to show that he purchased any piece of land and the RDO failed to observe the same and that the patta certihcate was issued to revision petitioners in the year 1993 and an appeal was Iiled in the year 2006 ie., after lapse of (13) years which is time barred and the RDO passed the order without perusing the hle No.1458 of 1993 which was submitted in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medak in the O.S.No. 17 of 2OOtr. The RDO observed that the patta certificates are not genuine. The Revision Petitioners fiIed the house tax receipts, electricity bills etc., to show their residence on the subject matter lald which were not appreciated by the RDO. The respondents in the revision petition submitted that they are living in the suit land since more than 50 years and that a civil case bearing A.S.No.S of 2006 is also pending and was posted for orders. The respondent No.l allowed the revision l0 petition b1, setting aside the order of IIDO in File No.D 1220512006, dated 07.O5.2OO7. The operative portion is extracted for reference. "On 14.11.20O8, the III Additional Distnct and Se-s-sron.s Judqe (Fast 'l'rock Coutl) ot l\tedok disposed of the A.S.N7.S oJ 2006 Jite.l bg respondents herein i.e., N.Deu[das and R.llqaga Redrlg against the orders passed bg Junior Ciutl Judqe, Medak in O.S./fo. 17 of 2001. The ctppeal is dismi-ssed uith costs througltout. Furlher uhile elalnratel4 dlscussing the case, the Cortft he[d thal the respondents i.e., T.MusoaicLh and T.(janesh are hauing prima faice casi.: and balance of conuenience [n thetr fauour and as such ore entitled for perpetual injunction agatnst the dekndants. Further it is also obserued that there is no need to interfere the judgment passed by the lou.ter court i.e., Junior Ciuil Judqe, Merlak."

15. On perusal of the records, W.P.No.78 18 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner on 15.04.2009 and this Court on 2l .04.2009 passed interim order in W.P.M.P.NoLO252 of 2OO9, which is extracted as under: "...The records dlscloses that the pos.session of the petitioner ouer the land in question utas recognised bg the respondents at dilferent point of time. Hence, there shall be inteim direction, as praged for. . .."

16. It is pertinent to note that as on date of filing of W.P.No.7818 of 2009, i.e. 15.04.2009 the petitioner is very much aware of the orders passed in A.S.No.S of 2006 on 14.1i.2OO8 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orderS passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Medak in O.S. No. 17 of 200 1. was dismissed and the petitioner obtained the interim orders in W.P.M.P.No. 10252 of 2OO9 in W.P.No.7818 of 2009 on 21.O4.2OO9 without disclosing the said fact. That apart, same petitioners in above W.P. No.7818 of 20O9 and W.P. No.18844 of 2OO9 have earlier filed W.P. No.i0504 of 200 I questioning the action of the respondents therein trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in their occupation ignoring resolutions passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Medak, dated 28.10.1997. This Court dismissed the said writ petition by an order dated I )

05.11.2008. The relevant hndings of the order are extracted for reference. ". . .It is utell settled latu that the best method of sale of public property ts by u.tag of a public auction utherebg the bid of the person, who quotes the higLrcst price, is accepted. Whateuer mag haue been resolution of the Nagar panchag at, I see no reason to entertain the u.trit petition seeking implementation of such a resolution wltich ntns contrary to the lau Laid doutn bg the Supreme court is this regard. With regards the petitioner's contention that they not be disposse.ssed, basing on tteir possesslon ouer the said. land for the pa.st 4O gears, it must be borne in mind that the petitioners themselues admit that the land in question belongs to th.e first respondent. If is also tuell settled that the remedg under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of Ind,ia ls discretionary and tl.nt is not issued, for tLte mere asking. It is onlg if larger public interest requires interference, uould this Court be justified in issuing a u.tit in this regard . The petitioners haue, admitted-lg, usurped the land belonging to the first respondent and haue retained it in their I3 possession. I see no reason to exercise discretion in their fauour for it is alwaAs open to them to auail the remed.y of a suit before a Ciuit Court of competent jurisdiction. Subject to the aboue obseruation, tLrc u.trit petition fails and is, accordinglg, dismissed. No ord,er as to costs. I I I I

17. Admittedly, as on today, there are no proceedings to the effect that the petitioner has been allotted the subject lands, except for their continued possession as claimed. Learned counsel further submitted that no appeal has been preferred against the order dated l4.ll.2OOg of the III Additiona_l District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) at Medak. It appears that there are disputed questions of fact with respect to the rights and possession on the subject property. The Municipal resolutions referred by the petitioner pertain only to those persons who are recognized as encroachers of the respective lands. Admittedly, the petitioner is an encroacher on the I l+ \ lbi.-{ subject land, and no proceedings have been issued by competent authority regularising/allotment of municipal land in his favour.

18. In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations made by this Court and that the petitioners have not brought the fact before this Court regarding the dismissal of A.S. No.5 of 2006 by an order dated I4.LL.2OO8 as on the date of filing W.p. No.78 18 of 2OO9 and without challenging orders passed in A.S.No.S of 2006, dated 14.11.2008, which has attained hnality had fiied these writ petitions. The orders passed by the Joint Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy in Proceedings No.F3/915312OO2- F3/87IROR/2OO7 dated 29.07.2009 does not warrant any interference by this Court.

19. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, these writ petitions tW.p No. 18844 and 7818 of 2009) are dismissed 15 Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYil SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ISTANT REGISTRAR s SECTION OFFICER VENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR RE Hyderabad. [OUT] loPUCl

2. One CC to SRI K.V.BHANU PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR TVC,TELANGANA) Advocate 4. One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies @i SA GJP ( HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.18844 AND 7818 0F 2009 /-:- _-_::l=-- 'r:i- SL.,.. - 2 6 IIIE 206 .). .:,\ ',1 ?..' ,4. i.' /:- .: \.i DISMISSING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. \o-e