Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, N. TUKARAMJI, JJ.
Balagoni Sai Kiran S/o Veeraiah Goud – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 80 of 2021
Decided On : 14-02-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14, 300-A and 226 - A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 - Rule 16 - Sections 2(1), 3(2) and 4 - Owner and possessor of land - Allotting the land for Government Projects and the appellants/petitioners - Appellants/petitioners preferred the writ petition before learned Single Judge stating that appellant No. 1/petitioner No. 1 is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring appellant No. 2/petitioner No. 2 is the owner and possessor of land appellant No. 3/petitioner No. 3 is owner and possessor of land admeasuring appellant No. 4/petitioner No. 4 is owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1.10 guntas - Lands were Government lands, which were assigned to the appellants/petitioners under assignment patta certificates - Appellants/petitioners further stated respondent came to the subject lands and asked appellants/petitioners to stop cultivation allegedly assigned in 1971, same is covered under the Act. Section 3(2) of the Act prohibits transfer of assigned land and in event of such transfer, power is conferred on the competent authority under Section 4 of Act to take possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person in possession in such manner as may be prescribed - Procedure is contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules, which provides that before taking any action under Section 4 of the Act, authorized officer shall issue notice to person who acquired assigned land in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of Act - Section 10 of the Act gives overriding effect to it over all other laws - – Held, Respondents reveal that proceedings Register, discloses that the proceedings relate to representations submitted in Janmabhoomi Programme for the villagers of Etigadda Kistapur and it was not file relating to assignment of land or file relating to entry in the revenue records - State Government has disputed the grant of original pattas, title and possession of the appellants/petitioners. Not only this, the record of the case reveals /petitioners submitted applications for Razinama under Rules and the same were accepted by Tahsildar, however the appellants/petitioners are disputing the signatures on the applications again becomes a disputed question of fact and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in a writ petition by High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Court, as purely disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case - Factum of possession and the factum of title were disputed and the persons whose rights were being affected were not impleaded as respondents, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition as devoid of any merit - Writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. The writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 08.01.2021 passed in W.P. No. 3789 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein.
2. The appellants/petitioners preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge stating that the appellant No. 1/petitioner No. 1 is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 2.00 guntas in Sy. Nos. 692/1/1, 692/1/2, 692/1/3, 692/1/4 and 692/1/5; appellant No. 2/petitioner No. 2 is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1.35 guntas in Sy. Nos. 692/3/1, 692/3/2, 692/3/3, 692/3/4 and 692/3/5; appellant No. 3/petitioner No. 3 is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1.32 guntas in Sy. No. 692/2; and the appellant No. 4/petitioner No. 4 is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1.10 guntas in Sy. No. 692/6, total admeasuring Acs. 6.37 guntas, situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District (erstwhile Medak District) (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject lands’). Originally, the subject lands were Government lands, which were assigned to the appellants/petitioners herein under assignment patta certificates. The appellants/petitioners further stated that on 20.02.2019, the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar, Kondapak Mandal, came to the subject lands and asked the appellants/petitioners to stop cultivation. It was brought to the notice of the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar that the lands are assigned lands. However, without hearing, the appellants/petitioners were thrown out of the lands. The respondent No. 4/Tahsildar informed them that the Government is allotting the land for Government Projects and the appellants/petitioners were directed to remove the crop. The appellants/petitioners have challenged the said action of the State without issuing notice and without following due process of law as illegal, irrational, arbitrary and in violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The following prayer was made in the writ petition:
3. A counter affidavit was filed by the State Government and the State Government took a categorical stand that the appellants/petitioners are not at all the owners of the land and as per the revenue records, the land in survey No. 692 to an extent of Acs. 9.00 guntas is recorded as ‘Bancharai’ (Gairan). It was also stated that according to Form-I Register for the year 1989-90, vide proceedings No. B/1867/2003, dated 23.07.2003, the names of the appellants/petitioners were entered as assignees in respect of Acs. 6.37 guntas relying upon the patta certificates, which were allegedly issued on 06.05.1998. The State Government on verification of records came to the conclusion that the Distribution Register relating to file No. B/1867/2003 discloses that the same is relating to representations submitted in Janmabhoomi Programme for the villagers of Etigadda Kistapur. It has been further stated on affidavit that the re
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
Section 4(1)(b)(ii), but the Government raised a plea that the petitioners are not entitled to restore the land in view of the amendment of Section 4 by Act No.8 of 2008.
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
