Telangana High Court
Principal Secretary, Department ... vs Bhanothu Radhamma, Khammam ... on 10 February, 2021
Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO.1329 OF 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated
07.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of
W.P.No.9832 of 2016 filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/writ
petitioners with a grievance that the respondent No.4/Agricultural
Market Committee (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) has
encroached on their land situated in Survey No.5/2/12 of Khankhanpet
Village, Kallur Mandal, Khammam District, and claiming that they
were not issued any notice and the respondent No.5/contractor
(respondent No.6 in the writ petition), is proceeding to dig a
foundation on their land and unauthorisedly to raise a structure.
2. In the impugned order, while recording that it is not in dispute
that both, the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners as well as the
respondent No.4/Agricultural Market Committee are claiming the
subject land situated in Survey No.5 and while the respondents No.1
and 2/writ petitioners are claiming land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas
in Survey No.5/2/12, the respondent No.4 is claiming the land in
Survey No.5/2, the learned Single Judge observed that there appears
to be a dispute with regard to the identification of the boundary and in
those circumstances, directed the appellant No.3 herein (respondent
No.4 in the writ petition) to conduct a ground survey, demarcate the
land of the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners and the respondent
No.4/Agricultural Market Committee within a fixed timeline. Further,
a direction was issued that pending conducting the survey status quo
shall be maintained in respect of the subject land.
3. The limited grievance of the appellants in the present case is
that the aforesaid order came to be passed without affording an
opportunity to them to file a counter affidavit and had that opportunity
been given, they would have brought to the notice of the learned
Single Judge that the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners were not
even the owners of the subject land, possession whereof was taken by
the Government as long back as in the year 1986.
4. Mr. C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue appearing for the appellants submits that the respondents
No.1 and 2/writ petitioners are trying to take advantage of the fact that
the records of the Revenue Department relating to the subject survey
number had got destroyed in a fire accident that took place on
03.07.2013. He states that the respondents No.1 and 2 have also
withheld material information from the Court that the subject land had
already been sold by the husband of the respondent No.1 as long back
as on 31.10.1991.
5. Mr. G. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents
No.1 and 2/writ petitioners disputes the aforesaid submission and
states that the subject land continues to remain in the possession of his
clients even as on date. He further clarifies that though the respondent
No.4/Agricultural Market Committee was planning to construct a
warehouse on the subject land, the said proposal was abandoned and it
is lying vacant in view of the status quo order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
records, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where the appellants
ought to be granted an opportunity to put forth their case before the
learned Single Judge on the aspect of the title of the subject land itself
which has been questioned by them. The said facts ought to be
brought on record before the learned Single Judge before any orders
are passed for conducting a survey and demarcating the land on a
premise that the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners are the actual
owners and in possession thereof.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 is quashed
and set aside and W.P.No.9832 of 2016 is restored to its original
position.
8. The Registry is directed to list W.P.No.9832 of 2016 before the
learned Single Judge as per roster on 28.04.2021. The appellants shall
take immediate steps to file a counter affidavit in the captioned writ
petition within three weeks from today with a copy to learned counsel
for the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners, who may file a
rejoinder, if any, within three weeks thereafter.
9. The present appeal is disposed of along with the pending
applications, if any.
______________________________
HIMA KOHLI, CJ
______________________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
10.02.2021
JSU/pln
