Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 443 (TS)

Boidi Vittal v. State of Telangana

2025-04-28

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K.SARATH, J. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking steps to protect the existing Maisamma Sikham in Sy.No.428 situated at Kubeer Village and Mandal, Nirmal District as opposed to the provisions of Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli (Act 24 of 1357) as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since times immemorial, Kubeer village has only one Tank i.e., Maisamma Sikham, being used by the villagers either for cattle or for agricultural needs and by the washer men besides undertaking fishing activity. The respondent Nos.5 to 10, who got entered their names in the revenue records, have obtained the assignment pattas by influencing and managing the revenue authorities and started making clandestine attempts to convert the tank into a layout taking advantage of the location of the Tank adjacent to the road and raising of the land value. He submits that the respondent Nos.5 to 10 have engaged the respondent Nos.11 to 17 for developing the tank into plots and started digging the land with JCB by closing the Tank, due to which the water in the Tank entered in SC colony, the stone cutters colony, bamboo weavers colony and other neighbouring colonies. Though the petitioners made several representations to the official respondents, no action has been taken. He further submits that the provisions of Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli , authorizes the revenue authorities to punish such persons who have committed any violation of these provisions and as the respondent Nos.5 to 17 are attempting to damage the only tank available for the village which is the water source for fishing, use by washer men and for cultivation and any further damage to the tank will submerge the village, he requested to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to restore the subject land as Government land/Sikham land. 4. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter submits that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:18.03 gts in Sy.No.428 was recorded as Government land Khariz-khata from 1954-55 to till 1969-70 and later as per the pahani for the year 1970-71, certain names of farmers were appeared in the cultivation column of the pahani as shivaijamedars (illegal cultivators of Government land) against the subject land. He submits that as per the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.124 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Bhainsa, dated 31.03.1994 and as per the Judgment in A.S.No.22 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Nirmal, dated 01.10.1997, the suit land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.10.00 gts was assigned to two assignees i.e., Shaik Hussain and Chand Pasha @ Ac.5-00 gts each in Sy.No.428 and their names were mutated in the revenue records in the year, 2000-01 as pattadars and the remaining extent of land of Ac.8-03 gts was shown as Khariz khata, but cultivation column shows the names of P. Vittal, S/o.Bhojana, Pothanna S/o.Dakaji and Ibrahim S/o.Ameer Khan. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that during the year, 2011-12, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts was recorded in the name of Muqther Begum, W/o.Ameer Khan as pattadar and cultivator leaving the balance land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-23 gts as Government land, which is under cultivation of P. Vittal s/o. Bhojanna. He submits that after demise of original assignees, succession was affected on the names of their legal heirs and now the legal heirs are found as pattadars of the subject land as per Dharani website. He further submits that as per the pahanies from 1954-55 to till Dharani, there is no record of a Tank by name Maisamma kunta in the suit land, whereas during rainy season, rain water will be stored in the suit land and at certain period, villagers/washer men were utilized the water for their need and the assignees of the suit land lost their crops for kharif season and there is no entry in the revenue records since 1954-55 to till Dharani that the suit land consists of Tank known as Maisamma Kunta. 6. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that as per the direction of the Courts, the names of assignees were brought on record and after their names, their legal heirs have succeeded those lands. The attempt of digging the assigned land closing the bund was stopped by the revenue authorities at Mandal level vide Lr.No.B/226/2018 dated 18.08.2018 against the offenders who tried to damage the bund. He further submits that the suit land comprising total extent of Ac.18.03 gts is purely Government land and neither existing any tank/water body nor the Shikham land (Maisamma Kunta),and out of the said land, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.14-20 gts of land was assigned to various assignees leaving the balance of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.23 gts as Government land free from assignment. He further submits that the petitioners, in order to cancel the assignment made to the assignees and get back the land into Government custody making the allegations of Tank/Maisamma Kunta existing over the suit land and as per the directions of this Court, the official respondents are taking necessary steps to protect the suit land and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 17, based on the counter averments, submits that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac18-03 gts in Sy.No.428 is not a Government land and it belongs to the respondent Nos.5 to 10 and they are doing agriculture much prior 60 years and no point of time that land in Sy.No.428 is Shikam land. In the pahani for year 1954-55, the names of the ancestors of the unofficial respondents were shown as cultivators and their possession was recognized by the Government and they are paying revenue fees to the Government. He submits that the forefathers of the respondents also filed suits in O.S.No.123 and 124 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif Court at Bhainsa, Adilabad District, for declaration against the official respondents and the same were decreed in their favour and their vendors on 26.07.1985 and 29.07.1985 respectively and the appeal in A.S.No.22 of 1994 filed by the District Collector, Adilabad and Revenue Authorities was dismissed on 30.09.1997. He further submits that the respondent No.10 also filed suit in O.S.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Bhainsa and the same is pending. 8. He further submits that the respondent No.10 also filed suit in O.S.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Bhainsa and the same is pending. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 17 further submits that the aforesaid decrees were implemented in the revenue records after conducting enquiry and the names of the respondents and their ancestors were shown as pattadar and possessors of the subject land. The land in Sy.No.428 is neither part of any tank nor used as tank and as per the revenue records, it is agricultural land and the respondents are pattadars and owners of the subject property and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners being the residents of Kubeer Village are questioning the action of the official respondents in not taking steps to protect the existing Maisamma Sikham in Sy.No.428 situated at Kubeer Village and Mandal, Nirmal District. The petitioners have no personal interest, but stated that being villagers they wanted to protect the Sikham land as per the provisions of the Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli as the said land was the source of water used for cattle, cultivation and by washer men besides fishing activity. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the revenue entries in Sy.No.428 situated at Kubeer Village are with regard to different names at different times and stated that the respondent authorities have failed to protect the Government land in Maisamma Sikham, which is illegal and arbitrary. 10. On the other hand, the contention of the official respondents is that there is no dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.428 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.18.03 gts was recorded as Government land Khariz khata from 1954-55 to till 1969-70 and thereafter, the ancestors of the unofficial respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.124 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif, Bhaisa and the same was allowed on 31.03.1994 and questioning the same, the official respondents have filed A.S.No.22 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Nirmal and the same was dismissed on 01.10.1997. In view of the same, the official respondents have mutated the names of the assignees for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.10.00 gts out of Ac.18.03 gts of the subject land and in view of the same, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.10.00 gts was assigned to the ancestors of the unofficial respondents and thereafter, Ac.4.20 gts was recorded in the name of Muqther Begum w/o. Ameer Khan and subsequently the names of the unofficial respondents were recorded as pattadars. 11. As per the counter filed by the official respondents, at no point of time the land in Sy.No.428 was recorded as Tank by name Maisamma Shikam and only during rainy season, due to heavy rains rainwater will be stored in the suit land and at certain period, the villagers/washermen were utilized the water for their need, but there is no entry in the revenue records since 1954-55 to till Dharani showing the same as Maisamma Kunta. The names of the assignees were brought on record as per the Court orders and after their demise, their legal heirs have succeeded the said lands in the year 2018. Out of the entire extent of land of Ac.18-03 gts, Ac.14.20 gts of land was assigned to various assignees leaving the balance of land of Ac.3.23 gts as Government land free from assignment and in order to cancel the assignment made to the assignees, the petitioners are making vague allegations for cancellation of assignment and the respondents are protecting the remaining land of the Government land. 12. The unofficial respondents also contended that they are doing agriculture much prior to 60 years and at no point of time, the land is Shikam land. The forefathers of the unofficial respondents have filed suits and obtained favourable orders against the Government. In view of the same, the respondent authorities are not interfering with the possession of the unofficial respondents. 13. In the above circumstances, the petitioners cannot take advantage of mere entries in the revenue records as the land belongs to Government and covers Maisamma Kunta. Before filing the writ petition, the competent Civil Courts in various proceedings in suit and appeal decreed in favour of the forefathers of the unofficial respondents and the same has become final. The official respondents have also implemented the said decrees and issued assignment pattas to the assignees. Before filing the writ petition, the competent Civil Courts in various proceedings in suit and appeal decreed in favour of the forefathers of the unofficial respondents and the same has become final. The official respondents have also implemented the said decrees and issued assignment pattas to the assignees. In view of the same, there is no cause of action to file the instant petition for protecting Maisamma Shikam in Sy.No.428 situated at Kubeer Village. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.