Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Kolluri Anjaiah - Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 39226 of 2017 & Contempt Case No. 3215 of 2018
Decided On : 25-10-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Petitioners contend that agriculture is the only source of their livelihood, that there is a cart track public road 10 feet width and 1350 feet length existing in Sr. Nos.707 and 708, which the revenue authorities claimed to be a Government land, that this cart track is existing for more than 20 years and all the farmers who are owning agricultural lands to an extent of 150 acres of land – Challenged – Held, No doubt the petitioners do have alternative remedy, but in my opinion it is not an effective alternative remedy, since the petitioners who are farmers cannot be compelled to avail the "lengthy, dilatory and expensive process" which is inherent in a civil suit – Respondents raised a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, this Court is not bound to relegate the parties to a suit, where the action of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India like in the instant case and deprives poor farmers of access to their agricultural lands and from ekeing out their livelihood, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India – This Court is entitled to entertain the Writ Petition and grant relief to the petitioners – Petition allowed (Para 26 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners contend that agriculture is the only source of their livelihood; that there is a cart track public road 10 feet width and 1350 feet length existing in Sr. Nos.707 and 708, which the revenue authorities claimed to be a Government land; that this cart track is existing for more than 20 years and all the farmers who are owning agricultural lands to an extent of 150 acres of land in Sr. Nos.716, 717, 719, 721 and 722 are using the cart track in Sr. Nos.707 and 708. The petitioners contend that this cart track is the only road/path way available to reach their lands as well as those lands of other farmers in the above survey numbers and that the cart track begins in Sr. Nos.707 and 708 and passes through private patta lands in Sr. Nos.716, 717, 719, 721 and 722 of Garmilla village to reach the old Mancherial Road.
Findings of the case:
No doubt the petitioners do have alternative remedy, but in my opinion it is not an effective alternative remedy, since the petitioners who are farmers cannot be compelled to avail the "lengthy, dilatory and expensive process" which is inherent in a civil suit – Respondents raised a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, this Court is not bound to relegate the parties to a suit, where the action of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India like in the instant case and deprives poor farmers of access to their agricultural lands and from ekeing out their livelihood, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India – This Court is entitled to entertain the Writ Petition and grant relief to the petitioners.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are small farmers owning small extents of agricultural dry lands at Garmilla Sivar Village, Mancherial Mandal of Mancherial District. The lands owned by them are as under:
Name of the petitioner Survey Number Ac.Gts Extent Situated at
1. Kolluri Anjaiah, S/o Kolluri Ramaiah 729/1/B Dry 719/4 Dry 721/4 Dry 722/1 Dry 0-34 0-30-1/2 1-00-1/23-22 ¾ Garimella Sivar, Mancherial Mandal
2. Bolishetti Hanmanthu, S/o Bolishetti Pochaiah 718/A Dry 7-33 .....
3. Bolishetti Srinivas, S/o Ramaiah 712 Dry 716 Dry 721 Dry 719 Dry 1-28 6-29 0-01 2-29 .....
4. Kothuri Sathamma, W/o Lachanna 719/4 Dry 0-30-1/2 1-00-1/2 3-22-1/2 .....
The plea of the Petitioners
2. Petitioners contend that agriculture is the only source of their livelihood; that there is a cart track public road 10 feet width and 1350 feet length existing in Sr. Nos.707 and 708, which the revenue authorities claimed to be a Government land; that this cart track is existing for more than 20 years and all the farmers who are owning agricultural lands to an extent of 150 acres of land in Sr. Nos.716, 717, 719, 721 and 722 are using the cart track in Sr. Nos.707 and 708. The petitioners contend that this cart track is the only road/path way available to reach their lands as well as those lands of other farmers in the above survey numbers and that the cart track begins in Sr. Nos.707 and 708 and passes through private patta lands in Sr. Nos.716, 717, 719, 721 and 722 of Garmilla village to reach the old Mancherial Road.
3. According to them, a news item had published on 22.07.2016 in Namasthe Telangana newspaper, local edition under the caption "a way was formed in Sr. Nos.707 and 708 pertains to Bhoodan lands"; and on the basis of the said news item, the Tahsildar Mancherial (5th respondent) closed the cart track by putting barbed wire fence across the cart track road on 25.07.2016 allegedly on the oral instructions of the then District Collector, Adilabad and then the Joint Collector, Adilabad.
4. Petitioners contend that they made representation on 25.07.2016 to the then District Collector, Adilabad and Joint Collector Adilabad and the latter made an endorsement on the petitioners' representation to look into the matter.
5. Thereafter, the 5th respondent directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector - I, Mancherial Mandal (6th respondent) to conduct enquiry on the spot and submit a report and the 6th respondent conducted such enquiry and submitted a report on 14.08.2016 to the 5th respondent.
6. The 5th respondent then submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial (4th respondent) on 19.08.2016 and the report of the 5th respondent clearly recorded that a road was formed in Sr. Nos.707 and 708 long back before 15 to 20 years and was being the farmers for daily use; that closure of the road/path way had caused difficulties to the farmers to attend to their agricultural field works and the farmers had requested for removal of the fencing and requested to open the way.
7. The 4th respondent then submitted a report to the District Collector, Adilabad in letter Rc. No.G/4178/2016 dated 23.08.2016 and the later issued oral instructions to the 5th respondent to restore the cart track road by removing barbed wire fence.
8. The 5th respondent then informed the District Collector, Mancherial (2nd respondent) that the cart track has been reopened on 21.11.2016 by proceedings B/2392/2016 date.23.11.2016.
9. Petitioners contend that again the cart track was closed in August, 2017 by digging trenches and representation was made by the farmers on 21.08.2017 to the 2nd respondent, but no action was taken thereon.
10. Petitioners contend that except this cart track in Sy. Nos.707 and 708, there is no other road to reach their agricultural fields; that llage revenue map prepared by revenue officials (filed along with page 18 of the reply affidavit) shows the cart track in an extent of 0.105 and 0.125 in Sy. Nos.707 and 708 respectively. According to the petitioners, they obtai
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
