Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana, vs Potharaveni Mounika on 5 June, 2023
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Writ Appeal No.534 of 2023
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dt.16.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.22702 of 2022.
2. The appellants herein are respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 in the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking direction to the appellants herein not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District).
3. The learned Single Judge, while disposing the said writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein as petitioner, observed that if respondent Nos.5 to 7/appellants herein have any claim to the land being claimed by the 1st respondent herein, the appellants/respondent Nos.5 to 7 ought to have followed due process of law and taken steps to get the 1st respondent- petitioner evicted from the property, if she is in forest land. By observing so, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the appellants/respondent Nos.5 to 7 not to interfere with the 1st respondent-petitioner's property admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District, without following the due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2
4. Heard learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the appellants, Sri T.Ramchander Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein and perused the record.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Forests would vehemently contend that the 1st respondnet herein has encroached into the reserve forest land and is undertaking cultivation activities under the pretext of being the owner, having title to land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village. It is further contended that land to which the 1st respondent-petitioner is laying her claim falls within reserve forest area, and thus, she is not entitled to claim such land. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that while the 1st respondent-petitioner claims land in Survey No.270/C, the said land is located elsewhere and does not fall within the reserve forest area.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent-petitioner is owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village; that her title to the said land is ancestral; that in recognition of her title to the land, she has also been issued with pattadar passbook by Telangana Government with Khata No.681; and that the appellants-respondent Nos.5 to 7 are taking undue advantage of non-cultivation of the said land by the 1st 3 respondent-petitioner, as belonging to them and forming part of the reserve forest area.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, would submit that the 1st respondent-petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village, and that she has also been issued with pattadar passbook by the Government with Khata number mentioned as above.
8. Having regard to the submissions made as above, it is to be seen that the fact of the 1st respondent-petitioner being title holder of land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village, Manthani Mandal, is not in dispute. Thus, the only issue that is required to be considered is as to the identification and localization of the said land belonging to the 1st respondent-petitioner. It is not even the case of the appellants herein that the 1st respondent-petitioner, on the basis of the pattadar passbook, is laying claim to land falling within reserve forest area while she is in possession of land elsewhere. Though the learned Government Pleader had disputed about the 1st respondent -petitioner not being in possession of the land, it is to be seen that mere not undertaking agricultural activities or keeping the land as barren (padava) does not take away the right/interest of the owner of the land. Thus, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Forests that the 1st respondent-petitioner is not in possession cannot be accepted. 4
9. Further, the learned Single Judge had categorically recorded a finding that the 1st respondent-petitioner is in possession of the property admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village. That being so, since the issue as noted above relates to localization of the said land of the 1st respondent - petitioner which the learned Single Judge had directed the appellants-respondent Nos.5 to 7 not to interfere without following due process of law, this Court is of the view that the said direction can be further clarified by observing that till respondent Nos.2 to 4 undertake joint survey to identify and demarcate the said land of Ac.1.08 guntas in Sy.No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village, the 1st respondent-petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the land being claimed by her.
10. For the above said purpose, we are of the considered view that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are to be directed to localize the land of the 1st respondent - petitioner admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas situated in Survey No.270/C of Lakkapoor Village, Manthani Mandal, by getting a survey conducted through the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Peddapalli District, after putting all the parties concerned on notice.
11. Further, since more than six months having elapsed from the date of the learned Single Judge having passed the impugned order, this Court is of the view that respondent Nos.2 to 5 should be directed to undertake the survey as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks hereof to ensure that the 1st respondent-petitioner can undertake agricultural activity in 5 the ensuing season. It is also made clear that the appellants herein, who are respondent Nos.5 to 7, shall cooperate with the conduct of joint survey for the purpose of identification and localization of the 1st respondent-petitioner's land.
12. Subject to the above modification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:05.06.2023 _________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J GJ 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Writ Appeal No.534 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) 05.06.2023 GJ