Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1483 (TS)

Veeragoni Sujatha v. State of Telangana

2025-11-12

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

body2025
ORDER : ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. The Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the patta agricultural lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.1551 admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.21 ¾ gts belongs to the 1st petitioner vide Pattadar pass book No.2007 and land in Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 5.03 ½ gts Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 5.03 ½ gts belongs to the 2nd petitioner vide Pattadar pass book No. 2078 situated at Garrepalli revenue village, Sambaiahpalli Gram Panchayat, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without due process of law.” 2. There is no representation on behalf of petitioner. 3. Since matter pertains to year 2016, this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournments. On last occasion also, when the matter was called, there was no appearance on behalf of petitioner. 4. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts in Sy.No.1551 and land admeasuring Ac.2.21 ¾ gts in Sy.No.1552/2, situated at Garrepalli Revenue Village, Sambaiahpalli Gram Panchayat, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar, vide sale deed bearing document No.2353/2008, dated 22.09.2008 and sale deed bearing document No.1415/2013, dated 26.04.2013. 5. That petitioner No.2 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.5.03 ½ gts in Sy.No.1552/2 situated in same village vide sale deed bearing document No.2017/2012, dated 12.07.2012. Petitioner No.2 also purchased an additional extent of land in Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac.5.03 ½ gts in the same village vide sale deed bearing document No.2238/2012, dated 20.07.2012. 6. It is further the case of petitioners that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural lands in the said survey numbers and that they have been cultivating these lands. They contend that their properties are not under submergence and they have been cultivating seasonal agricultural crops. According to petitioners, the Revenue Authorities are illegally interfering with petitioners’ properties and issued notice. A notice dated 13.11.2015, annexed as Ex.P1, was issued by the office of Tahsildar, Sultanabad to petitioner No.2. They contend that their properties are not under submergence and they have been cultivating seasonal agricultural crops. According to petitioners, the Revenue Authorities are illegally interfering with petitioners’ properties and issued notice. A notice dated 13.11.2015, annexed as Ex.P1, was issued by the office of Tahsildar, Sultanabad to petitioner No.2. The contents of the notice reflect that in a report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspectors and Village Revenue Officer dated 13.11.2015 states that on 15.10.2015, the petitioners used a Tata Hitachi Poclainer for removing soil from Pedda Cheruvu, Garrepalli Sultanaband Mandal, Karimnagar District. In the notice, it is further reflected that on enquiry, it came to know that poclainer belonged to one Sri Ramulu, MPTC, Mokdampur and that the petitioners requested Sri Ramulu for removing the soil. Hence, the report. 7. Basing on this report, Tahsildar issued a notice asking the petitioners to explain as to how they have used the poclainer to remove the soil from Pedda Cheruvu (Shikam land) without any permission. It was also stated that if no explanation was offered, criminal action would be initiated. 8. An explanation, dated 17.11.2015 (Ex.P2) was submitted by petitioner No.2. In the explanation, petitioner No.2 stated that he was excavating soil from his own patta land and was only levelling the land for agricultural purpose. It is also stated in explanation that the land in which excavation of soil was carried out is a patta land and not Shikam land. 9. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioners were excavating soil from the tank and that any unauthorized excavation from tank is not permitted. It is further submitted that based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, who inspected the site on 15.10.2015, Tahsildar was informed that petitioners were excavating soil from Pedda Cheruvu, without obtaining any permission and hence, notice was issued. It is also submitted that a Writ Appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Court and as per the direction of the Court, a report was called for from the District Collector by the Principal Secretary to the Government (Ex.P3). It is submitted that the land which petitioners claimed to be cultivating is not under cultivation for last 50 years, and hence, the question of levelling the soil does not arise. 10. It is submitted that the land which petitioners claimed to be cultivating is not under cultivation for last 50 years, and hence, the question of levelling the soil does not arise. 10. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that the allegation that respondents were trying to interfere with the possession of the properties of petitioners is not correct and that the petitioners’ lands are not submerged. The fact that the petitioners’ lands are not submerged is evident from the Memo, dated 11.09.2007 (Ex.P3). Hence, there are no merits in Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 12. As per the averments in writ affidavit, it is observed that the petitioners purchased certain parcels of land in Sy.No.1551 and 1552 through registered sale deeds on different dates. It is averred in the writ affidavit that petitioners possess pattedar pass books and title deeds to substantiate that the land in Survey numbers is patta lands and not Shikam lands. 13. Notice, dated 13.11.2015 issued to petitioner No.2. reflects that the petitioners were excavating soil from the tank bed of Pedda Cheruvu, Garrepalli Sultanaband Mandal. Notice also states that the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer reported that on 15.10.2015, a proclainer was being used for excavation of soil in the tank bed, which is illegal. On an enquiry as to the owner of the Proclainer, it was informed that it belonged to one Sri Ramulu, MPTC, Mokdampur and that on instructions of petitioner No.2, the soil excavation was being done in the tank bed. Accordingly, Tahsildar sought for explanation from petitioners. 14. The explanation was offered on 17.11.2015 from petitioner No.2. It is observed from the contents of the explanation (Ex.P2) that petitioner No.2 stated that excavation was being carried out in his patta lands and not in shikam lands. He submitted that parcels of land where excavation was done are not Shikam lands, but are patta lands and that they are entitled to carry out such activity for agricultural purpose. 15. The explanation offered is contrary to the contents of the notice, dated 13.11.2015. The dispute now pertains to whether the petitioners have carried out excavation in the tank bed or in patta land. This is a question of fact which has to be ascertained by the concerned Authorities. 15. The explanation offered is contrary to the contents of the notice, dated 13.11.2015. The dispute now pertains to whether the petitioners have carried out excavation in the tank bed or in patta land. This is a question of fact which has to be ascertained by the concerned Authorities. No counter affidavit has been filed offering an explanation or reverting the contents in writ affidavit. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2016 and an order was passed by a learned Single Judge by this Court on 22.03.2016 which is as follows: “Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation takes notice for respondent Nos.1 & 5 and Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 & 7 and seeks time to get instructions. Agricultural operations of the petitioner shall not be interfered with in any manner in the meanwhile. Post after one week in motion list.” 16. It is observed from the order of learned Single Judge, dated 22.03.2016, that learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue took notice for the concerned respondents and sought time to get instructions. However, no instructions have been placed on record for more than nine (9) years. This lackadaisical attitude of respondent-authorities cannot be condoned. 17. Be that as it may, having perused the entire record, petitioners have annexed the copies of sale deed, 1-B registrar extracts, pattedar pass books and other relevant materials. 18. Having perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners retain the right to excavate soil in their patta lands, as claimed by them. But, petitioners do not have any right to enter the tank bed and excavate soil, as observed from the contents of the notice. 19. In other words, if petitioners have violated the law by excavating soil from the tank bed, they are bound to be punished under the law. Respondent authorities are directed to initiate action, if it is found that they have violated the law by excavating soil in the tank bed. The fact shall be ascertained and due process shall be followed in punishing the petitioners, as per law. If petitioners have excavated the soil only in their patta lands, no action can be initiated against them. Needless to say that petitioners shall restrain from entering or excavating soil in the tank bed. 20. The fact shall be ascertained and due process shall be followed in punishing the petitioners, as per law. If petitioners have excavated the soil only in their patta lands, no action can be initiated against them. Needless to say that petitioners shall restrain from entering or excavating soil in the tank bed. 20. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.