Sammidi Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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 pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the Notice issued by the 3'd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.B/1 74212013, daled 0910312017 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said proceedings. l.A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO:113Q 0 0F 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r r:umstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Cc rr may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Notice issued by the I rd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No B/1 742120'1 3, dated 0910312017 in r?spect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.No. 727l31/A situaterl :rt Palvancha Village' Palvancha Mandal, Bhadradri Kottagudem District, Pend rrg disposal of the writ petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 3340 OF 20171 Between

1. The State of Telangana., represented by lts Principal ! e:retary, Revenue Department, Telangana State Secretariat at Hyderabz| J

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadrac ri Kottagudem District 3. The Tahsildar, Palvancha, Palvancha trrlandal, Bhadrz rir Kottagudem District. ... p( titioners/respondents Sammidi Janardhan Reddy, S/o Late. S. Venkata tleddy, aged 51 years, Occupation Cultivation, R'/o.H.No. 30-1-57, Vengrla Rao Colony, New Palvancha, Palvancha lr,4uncipality, Bhadradri Kottaguc en District - 507 115. ...RESP(}IIDENTSPETITIONER Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the . ir )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr:ry be pleased vacate the interim orders dt. 15.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.9176 o' :1017 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAIl Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SMT. S. SRAVANfI{|, AGP FOR REVEI\UE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER sK,,l W I,.No.9I76 ot20l7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.9 L76 of 20t7 ORDER: This rvrit petition is liled qucst.ioning the notice issued by the respondenr No.3 in Rc.No.B/ L742/2013 dated 09.03.2012 as illcgal zrncl arbitrary ard to sct aside thc said ncltice.

2. Heard Sri Kowturu pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionrrr. and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistan t (iovcrnr_ncn1 plcadcr for Revenue. None appears lor the unolficrai respondent No.4.

3. Lcarned Counsel lor th<: petitioner submits that the farhcr of petitioncr lalc Sri Sammidi Venkata Reddy was acquired thc land admeasuring to an extent of Ac'3- 10 gts in sy.No.727 /31/A situated at Palvoncha Villagc and Mandal, tshadradri_Kothagudem District about 4O ycar.s back ancl since then, he was cultivating the said lancl irnd the then erstwhile \ ! 2 SK, J i , () l7t) oi 2017 proceedings Government of Andhra Prad'esh was issue: pattadar passbook ancl title deed vide patta No 38O irr lavour of the father of petiti'oner and afte r his cllr-rise ' the petitioner is i, possession and enjoyment rl the said land. Whik: so' the respondent No'2 withotrt affording rlrc Land opportunity under Section 7 of Encroachment Act' 1905 has issued th'' impugned notice under Section 6 of the Madras Ac lil of 1905 Rc'No'B' 1742 l2ol3 dated 09 0 3 2017 directing the petition- i Lo vacate from the land within seven days from t -lc date of receiPt of the said nottce He further sulrr-iits that in this Court Pas-t: I order rn similar circumstances' W.P.No'1175 of 20i6 dated 24'06'2024 ztnC requested to pass similar order in the present writ p' -tition' 4. On ti-re other hand' learned Assistatrl (i<lvernment Pleader lt>r Revenue ' based on the cotrrrter submits that as pcr the records' the land in Sy'Nr'' /27 is purely classi,fied as Government land and subs-:'1uently to^" ,, 3 w.P.N".er76.r;5it part of land was assrgned in favour of BpL families in the year l9S0 by the Special Social Welfare Officer, Yellandu and some part of land was alienated for con struction of Kothagudem Therma,l Power Station, Palvancha and aiso for KTpS colony in the year, 1968 artd in addition to that the subject land was kept for public purpose lor future needs. She the petitioner has encroached upon the then Tahsildar, pa_lvalcha submits that as vacant the subject land, rssued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 19OS in Rc.No.B/ 1742/2013 dated 05.0g.20 13 to the petitioner, who in turn has submitted his explanation on 12.O9.2O13 stating thar pattadar passbook and titlc deed were issued to his father late Sammidi Venkata Reddy for the lard admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1_2O gts in Sy.No.727 and Ac.r-30 gts in sy.No.727/31/Aand the total rand IS Ac.3- 1O gts She further submits that after verification of thc records, it was found that the 4 S(,.I V P \o S 176 ol20 L7 petitione r has obtained pattadar passbc'rks and title following clue procedure 'r-rd as such deeds without cancellation proposals of said pattadar p rrr;sbooks and the highr:r authorities title deecls were submitted to cancellat ')l ) at District ald the same is Pending for Level ancl requested to dismiss the u'r it Petttton AS there are: no grounds to pass orders in t e present writ petitton 1n

5. After hearing both sides and 1--r:rusal of the ,iiew that the record, this Court is of the considerer.l petitioner has inheri.ted the land adrrL'itsuring to an Sy.No.727 131 /A situated at extent oi Ac'3-10 gts Palvancha Viilage and Mandal' Bhadrarlri-Kothagudem District from his father late Sammidi v':nkata Reddy The irnPugned notice was issued bY tre resPondent No.3 uncler Section 6 of the Madras ltc III of 1905 in Rc.No.B/ 1742 l2Ol3 dated 09'03 '2Ol' lor eviction of the petitioner from the subject land liithin seven days ln the imPugned from the date of ser-vice of the nottce' J * , ,".rr rU .r!5ij notice, there is no reference with regard to the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 190S dated 0S.09.2013 and also the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 12.09.2013 artd without there being any procedure, the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice straightaway under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 19OS directing the pedtioner to evict from the subject propertJz within seven days from the clate of service of the said notice. 6. Moreover, learr:ed counsel for the pefitioner has drawn the attention of this Court in W.p.No. lI75 of 2016 dated 24.06.2( The .perative portion of the said order in para *o"o' .6. In Madanapalle .6 is as lollows; t3 ^.,, 'lelangana ,;;r.;;;;rrcc High court ,.,. *. a),lltll'.-'"t'-. I{vderabad n",o ,ir, ,;.",r.: ^:' the Madras and the strt" or Encroachrnent ,,.,;.. ,';;:'':^ .Pra<*'sh .1905, relerred 5Lrpr-2, the combined and Andhra pradesh issue(l u,de r section 7 ot rhe Act 3 of -' --t applrcabie to rhe state ofAndhra pradesh is having sel *,hich came into ro,onol'" '""0".n r."o'J".sParate rmpusned notice. l. ,n" .i T: proceedings una". rurua.r";,'"t " hanci, respondent No.4 initiated I and passc(l Lhe irnpugncd order without application .f. In,"o..'u1". e, tl.re Doticc dated 0.5.O 1.2016 and from 23121so- ;;:::Hj Lan6 (-; SK,.J (r lTlr ol2O I7 \I I 'rr consequential order date(l 07 01 2016 passe<l by responclc t liable to bc sct irsrcte No.'1 are The above said findir-rgs also apply to I I'l instant case as the impugned notice was issttc'l under Section 6 of the Madras Act Ill of 1905'

7. As Per the counter of the respon have initiallY issued re spon dents Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act' denr No 3, the not i( c under ()05 to the pr:titioner ot-t

05.09.20 13 and the Petttron ': has aiso submitted his exPianatlon on 12.09.2023 lut in the impugned notlce , [here is no reference wr l' rcgard to thesaidtroticeandreply.Moreover,attnctimeof arguments' this Court has directed the rt r;p<lt-rdents to produce the record' Today' when the milltcr is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Goverr I cnt Pleader rt t ions of the for Revenue has submitted written instr ' resPondent No'3 dated of the scheduled ProPerty is petitioner and no land acquisitlon or zr,i,:nation took

12.08.2025 st'r.t 1g under occuPlrtL<ln that the 7 S(, .I w.t, No 9I76 of 2017 place over the said land. As per the documents produced by the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue with regard to the pahalies for the years 1958-59, 2OO3-O4, 2005_06, 20t3_14 clearty shows that the subject property is a private property of the petitioner. In view of the same, the respondents without any authority have issuecl the impugned notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Writ petition setting aside inrpugned notice Rc.No.B/1742/2013 dated 09.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.3. No order as to costs IS allowed by

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if ar-ry pending in this writ petition, shalt stand closecl. //TRUE COPY// SD/- U. SUDHA TANT REGTSTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 Th Th e Principal Secretarv. RevenLls Department, Telangana State Secretariat at e State of Telanganl., HyderaOaO. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kottagudem District The Tahsildar, patvancha, palvancha Mandat, Bhadradri plJSgudem District I -- 4 One CC to Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advoqate tOp _ Cl Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State :f Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copres 6 TJ GJP Y.y HIGH COURT \ DATED:1 310812025 - _ ' -:::-- ',i,>-\' ,rX \. ru5 :: ) ORDER WP.No.9176 of 2017 /' i: zi;: i .'1 \-: \ ,JCtT ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS qca(id &-