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) 64557

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Smt. Veeragoni Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 9297/2016



THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITON No.9297 OF 2016

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the patta agricultural lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.1551 admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.21 ¾ gts belongs to the 1st petitioner vide Pattadar pass book No.2007 and land in Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 5.03 ½ gts Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac. 5.03 ½ gts belongs to the 2nd petitioner vide Pattadar pass book No. 2078 situated at Garrepalli revenue village, Sambaiahpalli Gram Panchayat, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without due process of law.”

2. There is no representation on behalf of petitioner.

3. Since matter pertains to year 2016, this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournments. On last occasion also, when the matter was called, there was no appearance on behalf of petitioner.

4. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts in Sy.No.1551 and land admeasuring Ac.2.21 ¾ gts in Sy.No.1552/2, situated at Garrepalli Revenue Village, Sambaiahpalli Gram Panchayat, Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar, vide sale deed bearing document No.2353/2008, dated 22.09.2008 and sale deed bearing document No.1415/2013, dated 26.04.2013.

5. That petitioner No.2 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.5.03 ½ gts in Sy.No.1552/2 situated in same village vide sale deed bearing document No.2017/2012, dated 12.07.2012. Petitioner No.2 also purchased an additional extent of land in Sy.No.1552/2 admeasuring Ac.5.03 ½ gts in the same village vide sale deed bearing document No.2238/2012, dated 20.07.2012.

6. It is further the case of petitioners that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural lands in the said survey numbers and that they have been cultivating these lands. They contend that their properties are not under submergence and they have been cultivating seasonal agricultural crops. According to petitioners, the Revenue Authorities are illegally interfering with petitioners’ properties and issued notice. A notice dated 13.11.2015, annexed as Ex.P1, was issued by the office of Tahsildar, Sultanabad to petitioner No.2. The contents of the notice reflect that in a report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspectors and Village Revenue Officer dated 13.11.2015 states that on 15.10.2015, the petitioners used a Tata Hitachi Poclainer for removing soil from Pedda Cheruvu, Garrepalli Sultanaband Mandal, Karimnagar District. In the notice, it is further reflected that on enquiry, it came to know that poclainer belonged to one Sri Ramulu, MPTC, Mokdampur and that the petitioners requested Sri Ramulu for removing the soil. Hence, the report.

7. Basing on this report, Tahsildar issued a notice asking the petitioners to explain as to how they have used the poclainer to remove the soil from Pedda Cheruvu (Shikam land) without any permission. It was also stated that if no explanation was offered, criminal action would be initiated. 8. An explanation, dated 17.11.2015 (Ex.P2) was submitted by petitioner No.2. In the explanation, petitioner No.2 stated that he was excavating soil from his own patta land and was only levelling the land for agricultural purpose. It is also stated in explanation that the land in which excavation of soil was carried out is a patta land and not Shikam land.

9. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioners were excavating soil from the tank and that any unauthorized excavation from tank is not permitted. It is further submitted that based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, who inspected the site on

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