Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Maisangari Mohan on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
I.A.No.1 of 2023
in/and
WRIT APPEAL No.318 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. M.Sudharshan, learned Government
Pleader for Forest Department representing the appellants.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
28.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.7224 of 2020 filed by the respondent as the writ
petitioner.
3. Order dated 28.05.2020 is self-explanatory and is
extracted in its entirety as under:
Seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the petitioner over the agricultural
land in Survey No.44/1, admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas
in Didigi Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sanga Reddy
District, without following due process of law, though he
is in possession of the said land under a valid
assignment patta issued by the Tahsildar, Zaheerabad,
dated 05.09.2008, as illegal and arbitrary, this Writ
Petition is filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Government Pleader for Forests submits
that even assuming the petitioner was granted patta by
the revenue authorities, the very granting of patta being
illegal, without any authority and in contravention of the
forest laws, the respondent authorities would take
necessary steps with respect to the said patta. However,
as the petitioner asserts that he is in possession of the
land by virtue of the patta, necessary process will be
followed for evicting him under the forest laws, assures
the learned Government Pleader.
The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of making
it clear that the respondent authorities are entitled to
take necessary legal steps in accordance with law and
till then, they shall not interfere with the possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in question,
subject to the latter strictly using the said land for the
purpose of agricultural operations. No costs.
4. There is a delay of 975 days in filing the writ appeal
for which I.A.No.1 of 2023 has been filed by the appellants.
5. We have gone through the averments made in the
supporting affidavit in I.A.No.1 of 2023 but we do not find
any averments constituting sufficient cause to explain the
delay of 975 days. As per the averments made in the
affidavit accompanying I.A.No.1 of 2023, even the contempt
case filed by the respondent, being C.C.No.350 of 2020, for
alleged violation of the order dated 28.05.2020 was closed
on 10.02.2023. It was thereafter that a decision was taken
to file the related writ appeal.
6. There is thus no averment in the delay condonation
application explaining the inordinate delay of 975 days in
filing the writ appeal.
7. Adverting back to the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, we are of the view that the said order, as
extracted above, cannot be said to be in any manner
adverse to the appellants. Appellants have been given
liberty to take necessary legal steps against the respondent
but till such steps are taken respondent's possession over
the land in question should not be disturbed.
8. On a query by the Court as to whether appellants
have initiated any process for eviction of the respondent
after the order dated 28.05.2020 was passed, learned
Government Pleader submits that several notices have
been issued as well as joint survey was conducted. As
clarified by the learned Single Judge, appellants are at
liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law
against the respondent. But, without following the due
process, respondent cannot be evicted.
9. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ appeal as well
as no grounds for condoning the delay.
10. Both I.A.No.1 of 2023 as well as the writ appeal are
hereby dismissed.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
14.03.2023
vs
