1. Maheshkar Muralid.har v. The State of Ts

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the, respondents 2 to 4 herein in trying to interfere with possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.02 gts. of land in S.No.268/60 belonging to the 1st petitioner herein, Ac.1 .15 gts of land in S.No.268/66 belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein and Ac.1.26 gts of land belonging to the 3rd petitioner herein situate at Cheriyal Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak district for the n purpose of construction of Government Godowns in the said lands as illegal, arbitrary. unreasonable, without authority of law, violative of principles of natural justice, and also violative of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and also violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to interfere with our, possession and enjoyment of our above said lands l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(W PMP. NO: 65{8 OF 2016) 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 direct the respondents herein not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of Ac. 2.02 gts. of land in S.No. 268/60 belonging to the 1st petitioner herein, Ac. 1.15 gts. of land in S.No. 268/66 belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein and Ac. 1.26 gts. of land belonging to the 3rd petitioner herein situate at Cheriyal Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District for the purpose of construction of Government Godowns in the sard lands, pending disposaI of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. KIRAN REDDY REPRESENTING FOR SRI M. RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. DARA HARITHA KIRAN, ASST. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.51O9 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: '...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 herein in trying to interfere with possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.O2 gts of land in S.No.268l6O belonging to the I't petitioner herein, Ac. 1.15 gts of land in S.No.268/66 betonging to the 2nd petitioner herein and Ac.l.26 gts of land belonging to t}re 3'd petitioner herein situate at Cheriyal Vitlage, Salgareddy Mandal, Medak district for the purpose of construction of Government Godowns in the said la;rds as illega-I, arbitrary, unreasonable, without authority of law, violative of principtes of natural justice, and also violative of thc provisions of the zught to Fair Compensation and Transparency in l-and Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2Ol3 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to intcrfere with our possession and enjoyment of our above said lands and pass such otlter order or orders..."

2. Heard Mr. M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

3. The case of petitioners is that respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Sangareddy, Medak District) vide proceedings No.A5/4423/82 dated 12.04.1983, assigned land to an extent of Acs'44.00 1 JA(. ] wP 5109 2016 guntas in Sy.No.268 of Cheriyal Viliage, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, to 22 Ex-Servicemen (tarrd to an extent of Acs.2.0O guntas each), in terms of G.O.Ms.No.743 (Rev.) dated

30.04.1963. That Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1l17 dated

11.11.1993 directed that Ex-servicemen were free to sell their assigned lands after a period of l0 years (Ex.p1O).

4. It is the case of petitioner No. I that he purchased larrd admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.26g/60 from one B.Sesha Reddy (Ex-servicemen), vide registered sale deed dated

15.04.1996 ancl uas issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and that his name u'as entered in the revenue records. It is case of petitioner No.2 that he purchased land "d-"r."rri.rg Acs.1.15 guntas in Sy.No.268 166 lrorrr one y.Ramakrishna (Ex_ Servicemen) , vide registered sale deed dated 19 .02.1996, ttrat pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued and his name was entered in the revenue records. It is the case of petitioner No.3 that he purchased land admeasuring Acs. 1.26 guntas in Sy.No.268/63 from one Fareed Khan (Ex-Servicemen), vide registered sale deed dated 24 .O2. 1996, that he was issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and his name was entered in the revenue records. Learned pcunsel for petitioners invited 3 JAK, J wP_5109 2015 the attention of this Court to pattadar passbooks issued to petitioners (Exs.P2 to P6) and pahanies issued in November, 2016 (Exs.P7 to P9).

5. karned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondents are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of lands of petitioners on the ground that the said parcel of land is required for construction of Government godowns. It is further submitted that petitioners made a representation on ll.02.2016 (Ex.Pl 1) to stop further work for construction of godowns on their lands and that the said representation is still pending consideration. It is also submitted that no prior show cause notice has been issued and that respondents cannot enter into the lands of petitioners, without following due process of law nor acquiring the lands under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2O 13 (for short 'the Act, 20 I3). It is lastly subrnitted ttrat interference with the possession and enjoyment of lands of petitioners, without any authority of law, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, the writ petition. x -- 4 JAK, J wP 5 t09 2016

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents submitted that petitioners' apprehension is misconceived, as no acquisition proceedings have been placed on record nor any notification for construction of godowns in the lands of petitioners have been alnexed as documents. It is further submitted that the contents of paragraph No.S of writ affidavit makes out a clear case of misconception, as it is averred in the writ affrdavit that respondent Nos.2 to.1 are trying to interfere with the possession of petitioners. placing reliance on the averments made in the *,rit affida'it, it is submitted that petitioners filed the writ petition prematurely, u.ithout there being any acquisition proceedi,gs. it is also submitteci that no ciirections can be issued, until and unless a notification has been issued in accordalce with larv and it is upon issuance of such notification, without follou.ing due process of law, then respondents can be issued u,ith directions.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions_ 5 JAIq J wP il09 2016

8. Grievance of petitioners is that respondents entered into their lands along with a contractor and that the said lands are being acquired for the purpose of construction of Government godowns. That subject lands are purchased vide registered sale deeds and respondent Nos.2 to 4 cannot interfere with the peaceful possession of lands of petitioners. g . No documents are placed on record to buttress the contention that the lands of petitioners are being acquired for the purpose of construction of Government godowns' It is not the case of petitioners that lands have been sought for construction of godowns, it is averred in the u'rit affidavit that respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners' lands, on a mere apprehension that godowns would be constructed, no directions can be sought for' The contention that respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of lands of petitioners in the name of construction of Government godowns cannot be said to be a valid contention, unless the said act of respondents is preceded by a notification for acquisition of land. If in case, any acquisition proceedings are initiated, without following due \ 6 JAK, .I wP 5109 20t6 process of law, then petitioners wourd be entitled for the relief as sought for. t 0. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, as evidenced frorn the documents on record and the averments in the u,rit affidavit, it is not in dispute that subject lands belong to petitioners, but, the grievancc of petitioners is misconceived. As on date, no concrete action has been taken by respondent authorities for the purpose of construction of godowns in the lands of petitioners.

11. Learned counsel for petitioners sought indulgence of the Court that if there is any proposal for construction of Government godowns, respondents sl,rould follow due process of law or the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 20 13. Needless to state thar any requirement of land for the purpose of constructing Government godowns, be it the land of petitioners or of any of the citizens of the State, State Government is bound to follorv due process of law. Any non_ adherence to the due process of law would only render the proceedings invalid. Needless to state that respondents shall 7 JAI( J wP 5109 2016 act in accordance with law, if required, and petitioners always a have remedies under law.

12. With the above observations, Writ Petition stands closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY// SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAReSECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI M. RAJAMALLA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. touTl

3. Two CD Copies BN q ,37 S Di ? zJ r,2 tt)tfr * * PATC HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 ORDER WP.No.5109 of 2016 CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2a \