Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 283 (TS)

Y. RAMAKUMARI v. The State of Telangana

2024-04-19

SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2024
ORDER : B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J. Since the subject matter and the parties in both the writ petitions are same, they are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of both sides. 2. Both these writ petitions are filed by Mrs. Y. Ramakumari, wife of Mr. Vishnuvardhan Rao, against the revenue officials and a Sangam viz., A.R. Nagar Gudisevasula Sangam, Arutla Ramchandra Reddy Nagar, Hanmakonda, represented by its President Mr. P. Kamalakar Rao, which is respondent No.6 in W.P. No.27093 of 2022 and respondent No.5 in W.P. No.8871 of 2017 regarding the subject property. 3. For the sake of convenience, respondent No.6 in W.P. No.27093 of 2022 and respondent No.5 in W.P. No.8871 of 2017 is hereinafter referred to as "Gudisevasula Sangam." 4 . W.P. No.27093 of 2022 is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in laying C.C. Roads in the land admeasuring Acs.2-26 guntas in Survey No.904 (Old Survey No.1135), locally named as A.R. Nagar, near Vegetable Market, Kazipet situated at Madikonda Village, Hanmakonda Mandal (old), Kazipet Mandal (new), Warangal Urban District (old), Hanamkonda District (new) despite the fact that the land belongs to the petitioner who raised objection for the same vide legal notice dated 16.08.2021 apart from pendency of W.P. No.8871 of 2017 before this Court for eviction of the illegal trespassers (members of the Gudisevasula Sangam) from the subject land as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 5. W.P. No.8871 of 2017 is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents No.1 to 4 in not handing over vacant possession of the subject land admeasuring Acs.2-26 guntas in Survey No.904 (Old Survey No.1135), situated at Madikonda Village, Hanamkonda Mandal (old), Kazipet Mandal (new), Warangal Urban District, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 6.1. The case of the petitioner is that she is absolute owner and possessor of subject property admeasuring Acs.2-26 guntas out of the land admeasuring Acs.9-24 guntas in Survey No.904 (Old Survey No.1135), locally named as A.R. Nagar, near Vegetable Market, Kazipet situated at Madikonda Village, Hanmakonda Mandal (old), Kazipet Mandal (new), Warangal Urban District (old), Hanamkonda District (new) having purchased the same from Mr. Gottimukkula Yadava Reddy under registered sale deed who has purchased the same from its previous owner Mr. Thoutireddy Thirupathi Reddy on 13.06.1956. Gottimukkula Yadava Reddy under registered sale deed who has purchased the same from its previous owner Mr. Thoutireddy Thirupathi Reddy on 13.06.1956. The petitioner was issued Pattadar Pass Book No.214570 vide Patta No.697 and her name was mutated in the pahanies and also in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. 6.2. It is submitted that respondent No.4 - the Tahasildar, Hanamkonda Mandal, issued summons on 28.07.2000 vide proceedings No.A3/1423/2000 to the petitioner requiring to appear on 16.08.2000 in his office along with necessary documents to substantiate her rights and interest over the subject land. In compliance to the said summons, the petitioner appeared in the office of respondent No.4 on 16.08.2000 and produced all the documents to substantiate her rights over the subject land. Respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that the land on which the petitioner is claiming right is not available on record stating that the total extent in Survey No.904 is only Acs.7-09 guntas but not Acs.9-24 guntas and demanded the petitioner to vacate the subject land stating that the said land is 'BILA' number Government land. 6.3. The petitioner submitted representation vide application dated 23.07.2001 requesting respondent No.4 to conduct detailed enquiry and pass orders by claiming that the subject land is not a Government land. As there was no response, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No.24347 of 2000 and the same was disposed of by the order dated 11.12.2000 directing respondent No.4 to pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously in Proceedings No.A3/1423/2000, but there was no compliance of the order passed by this Court. It is submitted that taking advantage of non-compliance of the order of this Court by respondent No.4, members of the Gudisevasula Sangam erected temporary huts under assumption that the subject land is a Government land; but on the resistance of respondent No.4, Gudisevasula Sangam filed W.P. No.25270 of 2001 seeking direction to restrain respondents No.1 to 4 therein including the petitioner herein and also for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 4 therein to grant house pattas to its members. This Court disposed of W.P. No.25270 of 2001 by the order dated 23.07.2001 directing respondents No.1 to 4 therein and the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to dispose of the application of the petitioner herein and her vendors under Section 87 of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 with an observation that if on such consideration, extent of the land in Survey No.904 is revised as pleaded by the petitioner, nothing further needs to be done. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner dated 23.07.2001 under Section 87 of the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 was considered and Proceedings in Rc. No.A1/59/2004 dated 13.02.2004 was issued duly rectifying the extent in Survey No.904 as Acs.9-24 guntas and accordingly supplementary sethwar was issued and the same was enclosed with the letter dated 08.03.2006. 6.4. It is submitted that originally the entire land admeasuring Acs.9-24 guntas in Survey No.1135 was wrongly recorded as Acs.7-09 guntas. The mistake committed by respondents No.1 to 4 in respect of the said extent was resolved and corrected. Meanwhile, members of the Gudisevasula Sangam trespassed into the subject land during the period when it was in the custody of the Government. Hence, it is bounden duty of respondents No.1 to 4 therein to handover vacant possession of the subject land to the petitioner by evicting the trespassers - members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. 6.5. The petitioner submitted representation dated 14.02.2017 to respondents No.2 to 4 to handover physical possession of the subject land. As the representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P. No.8871 of 2017 to consider her representation dated 14.02.2017. Notices were issued to respondents No.1 to 4 and Gudisevasula Sangam for filing counter, but except Guisevasula Sangam, none of the respondents filed counter till date. However, respondent No.2 issued urgent notice dated 22.11.2017 in Rc. No.E4/2533/2017 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 directing them to submit counter affidavit along with parawise remarks to the Government Pleader for Revenue which is not complied with till date. 6.6. It is stated that the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam made an attempt to obtain house numbers to their illegal structures on the subject land. The petitioner filed objection on 21.10.2016 to respondent No. requesting not to consider representations of the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. 6.6. It is stated that the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam made an attempt to obtain house numbers to their illegal structures on the subject land. The petitioner filed objection on 21.10.2016 to respondent No. requesting not to consider representations of the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. The petitioner specifically mentioned that respondents No.2 to 5 are making efforts for laying C.C. Roads in the subject land to facilitate the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam knowing fully well that the trespassers have no right or title over the subject land. It is stated that laying of C.C. Road is nothing but abetment of the act of the offenders which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner who is the legitimate pattedar and owner of the subject land. The petitioner issued legal notice dated 16.08.2021 to the respondents demanding them not to lay any roads or do any acts at the costs of the Government in the subject land which belongs to the petitioner. Respondents No.1 to 5 proceeded with laying of C.C. Roads without considering the objections of the petitioner and pendency of W.P. No.8871 of 2017. 7.1. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the writ petitions, the averments in the writ affidavit pleaded by the petitioner are not disputed. 7.2. It is contended by the official respondents that on the application of the petitioner seeking rectification of the entry in respect of the subject land under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, the entry was rectified by respondent No.2 and the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Warangal District (presently Hanmakonda District), as Acs.9-24 guntas vide Supplemental Sethwar and communicated the same vide Ref. No.A1/59/2004 dated 08.03.2006 of the Assistant Director (S&LRs), Warangal to respondent No.4 - the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda. 7.3. No.A1/59/2004 dated 08.03.2006 of the Assistant Director (S&LRs), Warangal to respondent No.4 - the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda. 7.3. While the matter stood thus, members of the Gudisevasula Sangam have encroached the subject land and erected huts; respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not taken the subject land of the petitioner in Survey No.904 into the Government custody; respondent Nos.l to 4 never allowed the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam to trespass or encroach the subject land in Survey No.904 which is purely a patta land; it is responsibility of the petitioner or any other person who owned the subject land to protect the same from encroachment or to evict the illegal encroachers in accordance with law; the petitioner has unnecessarily added respondent Nos.1 to 4 as parties in this writ petition. 8.1. The case of the Gudisevasula Sangam as stated in their counter affidavit in W.P. No.8871 of 2017 is that its members are in possession of the Government land admeasuring Acs.2-15 guntas situated between Madikonda and Kadipikonda revenue villages near Kazipet. They have erected huts in the subject land which is well within the knowledge of one and all including the petitioner and the respondents’ authorities. The subject land is not assigned with any survey number and the same is known as ‘Billa Number (without any survey number)’. 8.2. It is stated that the petitioner in collusion with the respondents’ officials made attempts to dispossess the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. In order to protect and safeguard their possession, an application was made by them for issuance of house site pattas and the respondents’ officials promised to issue pattas to them, but dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. On verification of the records, it was revealed that the land in Survey No.904 is of Acs.7-09 guntas and pattadar is one Tirupathi Reddy. Thereafter, name of one Are Ramachandra Reddy for the land admeasuring Acs.5-00 guntas and Oruganti Malla Reddy for Ac.1-04½ guntas were recorded. Subsequently, name of the petitioner was also mentioned for the land in the said survey number without mentioning extent of the land she was holding. There is no record to show that how name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. 8.3. Subsequently, name of the petitioner was also mentioned for the land in the said survey number without mentioning extent of the land she was holding. There is no record to show that how name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. 8.3. The petitioner along with others filed O.S. No.1043 of 2002 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for perpetual injunction and the same was dismissed on merits with costs by the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2009 holding that the petitioner failed to prove her possession over the subject land. Appeal preferred vide A.S. No.70 of 2013 is pending before the District Judge, Warangal, for adjudication. Having failed to succeed in her attempts, during pendency of the appeal in A.S. No.70 of 2013, the instant writ petition was instituted. 8.4. It is further stated that spot inspection report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Warangal, was brought into existence only to favour the petitioner who is an influential person. The said spot inspection report is unilateral and vitiated as legal procedure has not been followed. The petitioner cannot claim eviction of the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam relying on the above report. The relief, if any, in respect of the subject land has to be sought by the petitioner by instituting a civil suit. 9. Rejoinder is filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. l to 4 in both the writ petitions. It is submitted that because of the illegal acts and negligence of respondent Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner lost possession of the subject land under the guise of enquiry that took place during 2000 to 2004, as respondent Nos.l to 4 took physical possession of the subject property. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 did not take proper steps to protect the subject property during the pendency of such enquiry. It is the duty cast on the Government to take necessary steps by not permitting any house construction, not allotting house numbers and not allowing to lay any road in the subject land. 10. Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Podila Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Bommagani, learned counsel for Gudisevasula Sangam, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents, and perused the material available on record. 11. Mr. 10. Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Podila Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Bommagani, learned counsel for Gudisevasula Sangam, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents, and perused the material available on record. 11. Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. Podila Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, submitted that when the enquiry was pending before respondent No.4 - the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda in Proceeding No.A3/1423/2000 dated 28.07.2000, the subject land was treated as Government land and during that time, members of respondent No.6 trespassed and encroached into the subject land of the petitioner. The official respondents who are bound to protect the subject land failed to protect the same during the relevant time when it was treated as Government land. Apart from that, C.C. Road is also laid in the subject land. Now, as the dispute regarding ownership has been resolved and subject land has been held to be patta land, respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot deny responsibility for illegally laying the C.C. Road in the subject land. 12. Mr. Prabhakar Bommagani, learned counsel appearing for Gudisevasula Sangam in both the writ petitions, submitted that the dispute herein is a private dispute which has to be decided before the civil Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take recourse to the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of the so-called patta land as she claims that the subject land is a private patta land and that the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam allegedly encroached into the same. The remedy for her is to approach the competent civil Court seeking recovery of possession. 13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the petitioner is trying to agitate his private disputes in a writ petition which is not permissible; the petitioner is trying to give a colour of dispute between himself and the revenue authorities and seeking for a direction to the revenue authorities to evict the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 do not have any role to play in the alleged encroachment of the subject land by the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. Thus, the dispute, if any, has to be resolved before a competent civil Court and not before a writ Court. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 do not have any role to play in the alleged encroachment of the subject land by the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. Thus, the dispute, if any, has to be resolved before a competent civil Court and not before a writ Court. 14. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 15. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the litigation time (2000 to 2004) between the petitioner and the revenue authorities, the land was in the custody of the Government, and the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam encroached the subject land and made unauthorised structures. It is also contended that C.C. Road has been laid in the subject land which is evident from Ex.B-2 photographs and the same is not denied by the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. It may be that the revenue authorities have laid the road for the benefit of the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam. It is not the case of the Gudisevasula Sangam that they have title over the subject land. Thus, when the C.C. Road was to be laid in the subject land, precautions should have been taken by the authorities concerned to ascertain ownership of the land proposed for laying road. But, they did not do so. 16. In the circumstances, this Court does not have any hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the subject land where the C.C. Road is laid. So far as encroachment of the subject land is concerned which was allegedly taken place during the litigation time i.e., 2000 to 2004 between the petitioner and the revenue authorities, the revenue authorities cannot disown their responsibility. However, in order to give an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Gudisevasula Sangam and ensure justice and fair play, in the opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry on the representation of the petitioner to find out whether encroachment of the subject land has taken place during the litigation period i.e., 2000 to 2004. The petitioner shall file representation before respondent No.2 for removal of encroachments by furnishing details as to the period of encroachment. The petitioner shall file representation before respondent No.2 for removal of encroachments by furnishing details as to the period of encroachment. In case, it is held in the enquiry that encroachment was, in fact, during such litigation period between the petitioner and the revenue authorities, respondent No.2 shall take steps to evict members of the Gudisevasula Sangam (respondent No.6 in W.P. No.27093 of 2022 and respondent No.5 in W.P. No.8871 of 2017) and deliver vacant peaceful possession of the subject land to the petitioner. Further, if the C.C. Road is of permanent nature and for public benefit and cannot be dismantled, respondent No.2 shall take necessary action in accordance with law directing the authorities concerned to initiate process for acquisition of the land covered by the C.C. Road and pay compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. 17. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.