1. T. Lakshmidevamma v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of 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, order or direction more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering with peaceful possession of petitioners over land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts situated in Sy.No-250/E2 of Pullur Village, Alampur Taluq, Mahabubnagar District without following due process of Law as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Law and violative of Article 14 and 21 of -= ^) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARA TII WRIT PETITION No 4271 of 2OL7 ORDER: Heard learnt:d counsel for the petitioners arr I learned Assistar-rt Goverrlment Pleader for Revenue or the respondents and perused the entire material on r( (rr)rd

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit" i.rat they are the o\\rners and possessors of the land to arr cxtent of Acs.5.OO guntas in Sy'No.25O/C situated in Pullrrr Vi1lage, Alampur Talucl. Originally, the said land was :'rrruted in favour of one Edigi Timmaiah on payment of Rr ''50/- in 15 equal installmcnts and subsequent to th<' )ayment made by him, the patta rvas sanctioned in hi ' lame in respect of suit schedule property. The said Edigi I mmaiah has no brothers and clo not have any children, a'- such, the Edigi Timmaiah executed tr'vo gift deeds in fa" rrtr of the petitioner No.1 Smt.Lakshmidevamma treating rt r as his successor. Basing on the said gift deeds, tl e revenue authorities entered the name of the petitioner llo.1 uide proceedings No.MROR/26 11996, dated 30.07.1': 96, in the 2 SK, J wP 427 I 2017 revenue records. Thereafter, the said land was divided between the petitioner No.1 and her children i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and the same were entered in the revenue records. While it being so, the respondent-authorities without following any procedure and without issuing any notice, illegally demolished the room situated in the suit schedule property which was in existence for the purpose of storing agricultural tools and threatened the petitioners to evict the suit schedule property. The said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrarSr and requested to allow the writ petition directing the respondents not to enter into the land of the petitioners, without following due process of law.

3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents basing on counter-affidavit submits that the suit schedule property was assigned to the said Edigi Timmaiah on 3O.O7.1996 and as per the conditions of the assignment, the said Timmaiah has no right to execute gift deed in favour of petitioner No.1 as the petitioners are strangers to I l SK, J wP .,1''1 2017 the original assignee. The proceedings issued i- avour of petitioner No.l uide dated 30.06'1996 in pli c': of the original assignee cannot confer any right or titl -: over the assigned land and the same is in contraVentio r o[ terms and conditions of the assignment patta' llre patta certificate isstred in favour of petitioner No ' 1 i r void and same cannot confer any right or title over the scheduled land assigned to the agricultural purpose and 1'Lc same is nou, being cotrverted into house sites and coml. l( rcial use by raising iilegai constructions by anti social ';lements' The respondents issued notice to the said Tir. I r naiah on t8.Ol.2Ol7 , to submit explanation n'ithin sever Cays and order of resumption was passed on 03 '02 '20 '7 and the said resumption order was affixed in the assilred land' After resumpl.ion of the subject land on 04'O2'' 3 t7, illegal constructions ln'hich are raised in the subject. l and were demolished and the land has been taken into ( cvernment custody. In view of the said resumption 61ds;;' passed by the respondents, the present writ petition h a'; become infructuous ard is filed by the petitioners only tr' grab the Government tand. As such, the present writ 1r :lition filed 4 SK, J wP 427 | _2017 by the petitioners 1S totally untenabie and requested to dismissed the writ petition

4. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considercd view that the respondents without following due process of lau, are interfering with the property of the petitioners, in spite of the petitioners narnes were entered in the revenue record. There is no dispute with regard to the suit scheduie property assigned to one Edigi Timmaiah, after his dcmise, the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property as they are the legal heirs of the said Edigi Timmaiah. The responcients have contended that the petitioners are not entitled to be in the suit schedule property basing on the muta'Lion proceedings and the said proceedings are contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and they have resumed the land on O4.Q2.2O17 by issuing resumption proceeCings which is annexed in their counter-affidavit. Without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the respondents cannot interfere into the scheduled lald as the petitioners are recorded as pattedars . ",',: 5 SK. J wP ,i ), 1 2017 and the said action is contrary to the provisi' I1s of the Telangana Assigned I-ands (Prohibition of Trar-' ;f :rs) Act, lg77 . lf the rt:spondents want to evict the petitir I ers from the suit sch,:dule property, tl-rey have to o lor'r' the procedure by issuing notice to the petitioners z nd after obtaining ne(essarv explanation from them aed pass appropriate orclers. In the instant case, the rr :i )ondents u,ithor-rt follov'ing the procedure as contempla tC in the Telangana Assigned l-ands (Prohibition of Trzrr s ers) Act, 1977, are intt:rfering into the possession of the 1r rtitioners and the said action of the respondents is ll:gal and arbltr.1ry. In vieu, of the above finding, the u'rit 5. disposed of directing the respondents not to ir p:tition ts e rfere into the sr-rit scheciule property ri'ithout following du process of law and this order does not preclude the resl o rdents to initiate procecclings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Pt rl ribition of Transfers) Act, 1977, alter issuing notices. Th r,: shall be no order as to costs. { l. 6 SK, J wP_4271_2017 u'-:.r)

6. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- AHM D ABDULLA KHAN TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Secretary (Revenue) Department Secretariat, T Hyderabad. State of Telangana,

2. The District Collector Jogulamba Gadwal, District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Gadwal., Jogulamba Gadwal District. 4. The Tahsildar Vundavalli Mandal Jogulamba, Gadwal District. 5. One CC to Sri Harender Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies o To, TJ GJ i HIGH COURT DATED:1810612025 ORDER

1.1 , WP.No.4271 of 2017 13 :lt:r au[ I 1,, ,r O,r-. , t)t' I i.: ,.+ ,,, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { 01 I >\