2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68347
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Gundala Ravinder and 2 others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 3 others – Respondent
WP 37579/2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.37579 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent authorities in coming to the land of the petitioners i.e., land admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts in Sy. No.140/2 of the petitioner No.1, admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.140/3 of the petitioner No.2 admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.140/5 of the petitioner No.3 situated at Ursu Village, Warangal Urban Mandal, Warangal District, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without calling for any explanation from the petitioners and without following due procedure contemplated under Law is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from their above respective lands unless the respondent authorities follow due procedure contemplated under Law …”
2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent No.4.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.140/2, petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.140/3 and petitioner No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.140/5, situated at Ursu Village, Warangal Urban Mandal, Warangal District.
4. It is further submitted that during life time of petitioners father, he and husbands of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 along with five others have filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 1986, against respondent Nos.2 and 4 declaring them as owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.8.20 guntas in Sy.No.140 and 142, situated at Ursu Village, Warangal Urban Mandal, Warangal district on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal and the said suit was decreed in their favour vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.10.1995. It is further submitted that as the petitioners are the legal heirs of decree holders; they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, and the revenue authorities also recorded their names in the revenue records including in Faisal Patti.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that way back, in the month of March, 2005, respondent No.3 issued proceedings in Rc.No.A1/162/2000 to the Sub- Registrar, indicating that suit filed by the father of petitioner No.1 and others in O.S.No.81 of 1986 was decreed on 27.05.1995, they are the owner and possessors of the property, therefore no objection for registration as per the Court judgment. It is further submitted that all of sudden on 16.09.2022, the respondent authorities have attempted to intervene the property of the petitioners stating that the land was allotted for construction of Camp Office of Local MLA and they were attempted to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful property without issuing any notice and without calling any explanation and without following due procedure under law. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court to pass appropriate directions to the Revenue authorities.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the present case is in between the petitioners and the Revenue authorities, but, so far as the property in question is falling within the municipal limits of respondent No.4, therefore, respondent No.4 has earmarked the said property to the Local MLA to construct Camp Office. Therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition with misconception and seeks to dismiss