SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 37287

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
RESHMA BEGUM NIZAMABAD DISTRICT – Appellant
Versus
PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT. HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
WP/17478/2014



THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.17478 OF 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the action of the Tahsildar Nandipet in trying to dispossess the petitioner from her land in Survey No.925 of Nandipet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas without following any procedure prescribed under law as illegal, arbitrary unjust and without any notice, contrary to the cordinal principles of nature of justice and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders …”

2. Brief facts:

Petitioner claims that her grandfather was the owner of land in Survey No.685 admeasuring Ac.10.02 guntas and land in Survey No.686 admeasuring Ac.10.35 guntas (total Ac.20.37 guntas) of Nandipet village and mandal, Nizamabad District. It is further the case of petitioner that the said survey numbers were allotted sy.nos.685/1,2,3,4,5 and sy.nos.686/1,2,3,4,5. Later, the said new survey numbers were assigned sy.nos.914, 915, 925, 929, 930, 913, 932, 927, 928 and 931. Grandfather of the petitioner was also issued Shunvai Parcha by the concerned revenue officials.

3. It is the specific case of petitioner that in spite of allottment of new survey numbers in respect of the said land, the new survey numbers were not entered/recorded in the revenue records. When respondent authorities tried to interfere in the land, petitioner’s father filed suit bearing number O.S.No.273 of 1981 on the file of District Munsiff, at Nizamabad, seeking perpetual injunction against the State of AP represented through District Collector, Nizamabad, and his/her staff, servant(s) and workers from encroaching, entering, interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff from possession and enjoyment of sy.nos.685/1,2,3,4 and 5 and sy.nos.686/4 and 5 (new sy.nos.913, 914, 915, 925, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, and 932). Further, it was prayed to declare the plaintiff (i.e., petitioner’s father) as owner and possessor of land in Survey No.686/4 (New Sy.No.926) at Nandipet village and to mutate patta in the name of her father.

4. By judgment dated 27.03.1989, the District Munsiff permanently restrained the District Collector and his/her staff, servant(s) and workers from encroaching, entering, interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff from possession and enjoyment of sy.nos.685/1,2,3,4,5 and sy.nos.686/5 (new sy.nos.913, 914, 915, 925, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, and 932). But, the relief of declaration that the petitioner’s father is the owner and is in possession of the land in survey No.686/4 (new Survey No.926) situated at Nandipet Village and to order the defendant to mutate patta in the name of the plaintiff was dismissed.

5. The grievance of petitioner is that official respondents are trying to interfere with the land in Sy.No.925 to an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas and trying to erect fencing, without issuing any notice nor following the due process of law. Hence, the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner’s grandfather was the owner and was in peaceful possession of the land to an extent of Ac.20.37 guntas in Sy.Nos.685 and 686 (old) of Nandipet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is further submitted that official respondents assigned new survey numbers by conducting survey. It is further submitted that the new survey numbers assigned were not entered/recorded in the revenue records. It is also submitted that official respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the peaceful possession of the subject land, without issuing any notice nor following the due procedure. It is submitted that a legal notice was issued on 08.03.2014 to the Tahasildar that petitioner would be constrained to initate necessary legal action. Petitioner preferred W.P.No.21557 of 2002. This Court, by order dated 30.10.2002, disposed of the writ pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top