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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 63026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
MAHESHKAR MURALIDHAR MEDAK DIST. AND 2 OTRS. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TS. REVENUE HYD. AND 3 OTRS. – Respondent
WP 5109/2016



THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.5109 OF 2016

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 herein in trying to interfere with possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.02 gts of land in S.No.268/60 belonging to the 1st petitioner herein, Ac.1.15 gts of land in S.No.268/66 belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein and Ac.1.26 gts of land belonging to the 3rd petitioner herein situate at Cheriyal Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak district for the purpose of construction of Government Godowns in the said lands as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without authority of law, violative of principles of natural justice, and also violative of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to interfere with our possession and enjoyment of our above said lands and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

3. The case of petitioners is that respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Sangareddy, Medak District) vide proceedings No.A5/4423/82 dated 12.04.1983, assigned land to an extent of Acs.44.00 guntas in Sy.No.268 of Cheriyal Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, to 22 Ex-Servicemen (land to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas each), in terms of G.O.Ms.No.743 (Rev.) dated 30.04.1963. That Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993 directed that Ex-Servicemen were free to sell their assigned lands after a period of 10 years (Ex.P10).

4. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that he purchased land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.268/60 from one B.Sesha Reddy (Ex-Servicemen), vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.1996 and was issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and that his name was entered in the revenue records. It is case of petitioner No.2 that he purchased land admeasuring Acs.1.15 guntas in Sy.No.268/66 from one Y.Ramakrishna (Ex- Servicemen), vide registered sale deed dated 19.02.1996, that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued and his name was entered in the revenue records. It is the case of petitioner No.3 that he purchased land admeasuring Acs.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.268/63 from one Fareed Khan (Ex-Servicemen), vide registered sale deed dated 24.02.1996, that he was issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and his name was entered in the revenue records. Learned counsel for petitioners invited the attention of this Court to pattadar passbooks issued to petitioners (Exs.P2 to P6) and pahanies issued in November, 2016 (Exs.P7 to P9).

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondents are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of lands of petitioners on the ground that the said parcel of land is required for construction of Government godowns. It is further submitted that petitioners made a representation on 11.02.2016 (Ex.P11) to stop further work for construction of godowns on their lands and that the said representation is still pending consideration. It is also submitted that no prior show cause notice has been issued and that respondents cannot enter into the lands of petitioners, without following due process of law nor acquiring the lands under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’). It is lastly submitted that interference with the possession and enjoyment of lands of petitioners, without any authority of law, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

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