Telangana High Court
Bommagani Rajaiah , Yendapalli Rajaiah vs Mr P Sampath on 17 September, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.20741 OF 2021
ALONG WITH CONTEMPT CASE No.1121 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The aforesaid writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective agricultural lands in Survey Nos.306 and 307, admeasuring Acs.9.21 guntas and Acs.3.29 guntas, respectively, situated at Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the judgment dated 22.07.1986 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.774 of 1986 and the order dated 02.07.2013 in Complaint No.3323/2013/B1 passed by the Lokayukta.
3. Whereas, C.C. No.1121 of 2021 is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of interim order dated 01.09.2021 passed by this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P. No.20741 of 2021.
2 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021
4. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:
i) The petitioners herein are nine (09) in number. They are the owners and possessors of agricultural lands in Survey Nos.306 and 307, admeasuring Acs.9.21 guntas and Acs.3.29 guntas, respectively, situated at Rayadandi Revenue Village, Anthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District, since decades by way of cultivation and are eking out their livelihood. Their claim is as follows:
Survey Extent
S.No. Rank of petitioner
No. Acs. Gts.
Petitioner No.1 306 1.20
01.
307 1.34½
02. Petitioner No.2 307 1.34½
03. Petitioner No.3 306 1.27
04. Petitioner No.4 306 3.00
(As Bandi Guravaiah died leaving him (total)
Acs.1.20 gts.)
05. Petitioner No.5 306 1.02
06. Petitioner No.6 306 0.22
07. Petitioner No.7 306 1.00
08. Petitioner No.8 306 1.02
09. Petitioner No.9 (As per 2nd list, FMB) 306 2.07
ii) Originally, the then Nizam Government had issued a Notification dated 13.04.1356 Fasli (1946) under Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of about 2000 acres of land, for construction of Godavari Thermal Power Station and Azamabad Industrial Village.
iii) Later, the aforesaid acquisition was dropped. However, it was assured to the landlords that in case the Scheme is materialized, the persons whose lands are under acquisition would 3 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 be absorbed in Power Scheme, and in case the Power Scheme does not materialize, their lands would be returned on the condition that the compensation paid to them would be refunded to the Government.
iv) Due to the Police Action, the Union Government had taken over the administration from the erstwhile Nizam. The names of Pattadars in revenue records for the entire extent of land proposed for acquisition by the Nizam Government and recorded the names of Pattadars in possession column by naming the entire land as "Kurj Kammi" (Government Land).
v) As the State Government failed to pay the rents to the Excise Trees, one of the land owners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.12241 of 1984. Vide order dated 06.03.1986, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, directed the respondents therein to pay rental to the petitioner therein regularly and also restrained them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner therein. Liberty was granted either to release the lands in favour of the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to pay back the amount of compensation received, or acquire the land by 4 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 duly initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings in accordance with law.
vi) Since the State Government did not act in terms of the directions of this Court, a group of land owners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.2148 of 1986 seeking to implement and restore their legal rights, and the same was dismissed on 03.03.1986. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a writ appeal vide W.A. No.774 of 1986. Vide judgment, dated 22.07.1986, a Division Bench of this Court modified the judgment dated 03.03.1986 of learned Single Judge, directing the Government to consider the entire issue giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners therein or their representatives collectively and take a decision with respect to their just claims on equitable grounds. Till a decision is taken by the Government, the land would continue to be in possession of respective petitioners.
vii) Thereafter, pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the State Government had acquired an extent of Acs.187.00 guntas vide G.O.Ms.No.846, Revenue (LA) Department, dated 22.11.2000 by paying compensation to the respective persons.
5 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021
viii) A representation dated 21.06.2010 was made to the Government for implementing the aforesaid judgment in the aforesaid writ appeal. Pursuant to the same, the State Government issued a memo dated 07.07.2010 directing the District Collector to take action for implementing the judgment in the said writ appeal. Accordingly, vide letter dated 30.05.2011, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) called for the list of enjoyers in possession with their extent. Thereupon, vide letter dated 27.01.2012, the Tahsildar, erstwhile Ramagundam Mandal, after due verification physically, submitted such list.
ix) Vide another memo dated 30.04.2012 again the State Government directed the District Collector to restore the ownership rights to the farmers as per the aforesaid judgment in writ appeal.
x) While so, vide Complaint No.3323 of 2013/B1, Mr. Kariveda Raji Reddy & others approached the Lokayukta, wherein the Lokayukta passed orders on 02.07.2013 directing the respondents to undertake survey of the lands and take a decision within four months. Pursuant to the said order, the Government issued another Memo dated 23.02.2015 directing the Collector for implementation of the directions. As per the said orders of 6 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 Lokayukta, the Tahsildar conducted field survey of entire 'Kurj Kammi' lands and prepared FMS with reference to the possession of the farmers and submitted a report along with 'Tonch Naksha vide letter dated 21.11.2014 to the RDO. In the said report, the Tahsildar had mentioned that an extent of Acs.07.01 guntas in Survey No.306 as 'dispute' in respect to approach to the lands made by the petitioner in between them.
xi) As there was no action, a second Complaint No.753/17/B1 was made to the Lokayukta. As per the orders of Lokayukta, vide letter dated 06.06.2018, the RDO sent proposals to the Government for re-conveyance of aforesaid lands in Rayadandi Revenue Village to its original land owners. The District Collector submitted proposals vide letter dated 30.03.2020 to the Government, for re-conveyance of the acquired lands to its original owners/pattadars/enjoyers/legal heirs in terms of the directions given by the Lokayukta and this Court in the aforesaid writ appeal. The same were forwarded to the CCLA for consideration.
xii) While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.3 to 5, in utter violation of the aforesaid directions and judgment, are trying 7 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 to interfere and dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands. Therefore, the present writ petition.
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
i) Respondent No.5 filed counter reiterating the aforesaid Scheme and the proposals submitted etc. As far as the subject lands are concerned, it is submitted that Government land to an extent of Acs.9.21 guntas in Survey No.306 was identified and allotted for plantation of saplings under 'Bruhath Palle Prakruthi Vanam' Programme since it is feasible for plantation by the then Tahsildar, dated 21.06.2021. Out of the said extent, an extent of Acs.7.01 guntas is vacant and has not been under enjoyment/possession of any person as per the enjoyment survey conducted on 21.11.2014 by the Tahsildar. The said land was handed over to the Mandal Parrishad Development Officer, Anthergaon on 27.07.2021 duly surveyed and demarcated under cover of panchanama.
ii) The petitioners herein are not in enjoyment of the lands to an extent of Acs.07.01 guntas in Survey No.306. Survey No.307 was not identified and allotted for the said plantation of saplings.
The petitioners were never assigned the Government land in 8 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 Survey Nos.306 and 307 for agriculture purpose and never granted assignment pattas, as such, the question of trying to dispossess them from the subject lands does not arise. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record would disclose that it is not in dispute that originally, the then Nizam Government had issued a Notification dated 13.04.1356 Fasli (1946) under Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of about 2000 acres of land, for construction of Godavari Thermal Power Station and Azamabad Industrial Village.
However, it was assured to the landlords that in case the Scheme is materialized, the persons whose lands are under acquisition would be absorbed in Power Scheme, and in case the Power Scheme does not materialize, their lands would be returned on the condition that the compensation paid to them would be refunded to the Government. In view of the said acquisition, the names of the pattadars in revenue records for the entire extent of land were deleted by mentioning it as "Kurj Kammi" (Government Land).
9 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021
ii) One of the land owners of the aforesaid land filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.12241 of 1984, wherein vide order dated 06.03.1986, this Court directed the respondents to pay rental to the petitioner therein regularly and also restrained them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner therein. Liberty was granted either to release the lands in favour of the petitioner therein with a direction to the petitioner therein to pay back the amount of compensation received, or to acquire the land by duly initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, some other land owners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.2148 of 1986 and the same was dismissed on 03.03.1986. Challenging the same, they filed W.A. No.774 of 1986, wherein vide judgment, dated 22.07.1986, the Division Bench of this Court modified the judgment dated 03.03.1986 of learned Single Judge, directing the Government to consider the entire issue affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioners therein or their representatives collectively and take a decision with respect to their just claims on equitable grounds. Till a decision is taken by the Government, the land would continue to be in possession of respective petitioners.
10 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021
iii) Thereafter, pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the State Government had acquired an extent of Acs.187.00 guntas vide G.O.Ms.No.846, Revenue (LA) Department, dated 22.11.2000 by paying compensation to the respective persons.
iv) As per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ appeal and the orders dated 02.07.2013 and 06.06.2018 passed by the Lokayukta mentioned above, the respondents conducted field survey of entire 'Kurj Kammi' lands and prepared FMS with reference to the possession of the farmers and submitted a report to the Government.
v) It is contended by the respondents that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in Survey No.306 and that an extent of Acs.07.01 guntas in Survey No.306 was vacant. Therefore, the said extent was handed over to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Anthergaon on 27.07.2021 duly surveyed and demarcated under cover of panchanama for the purpose of plantation of saplings.
vi) As far as land in Survey No.307 is concerned in his counter, respondent No.5 contended that the same was not 11 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 identified and, therefore, it was not handed over to them. Therefore, the question of interfering with the possession of the petitioner and dispossessing them from the subject lands does not arise.
vii) Perusal of list of particulars of Kuruju Kammi lands in Rayadandi Village of the Tahsidlar, Ramagundam Mandal filed by the petitioners along with writ petition, would show that it was prepared by respondent No.5 - Tahsildar and forwarded the same along with letter dated 18.04.2016 to respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli Division. Though said list contains names of the petitioners and the extents held by them in both the aforesaid survey numbers, it does not contain the seal and signature of concerned Officer. However, the official respondents did not dispute the said list in the counter filed by them. However, in the subsequent list prepared and forwarded by the RDO, Peddapalli along with letter No.B1/1743/2011, dated 31.05.2016 to the District Collector, Karimnagar, the names of all the petitioners do not reflect in respect of Survey No.306 and only reflects the name of petitioner No.9 as against the column 'field enjoyer' and extent of enjoyment land as Acs.2.07 guntas. Underneath the column, it 12 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 is mentioned as 'No response' and in remarks column, it is mentioned as 'Dispute Land'.
viii) With regard to Survey No.307, R&B Road is being shown as field enjoyer over an extent of Acs.4.15 guntas. The names of Mr. Bommagani Rajaiah S/o Lingaiah (Petitioner No.1 herein) and Mr. Bommagani Pushpalatha W/o Venkata Swamy (Petitioner No.2) are being shown as field enjoyers for an extent of Acs.1.34½ each. In view of the same, it is clear that the names of the petitioners were shown in the first list, but in the subsequent list, which is also filed by the petitioners along with writ petition, the names of all the petitioners are not being shown except petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 9. The first list submitted by the Tahsildar through letter dated 18.04.2016 contains ten (1) columns, such as S.No., Name of the Village, Sy.No., Total Extent, Pattadar Name, Enjoyment, Extent, Economical Status, Caste and Remarks, whereas, the subsequent list that was prepared and forwarded by the RDO to the Collector vide letter dated 31.05.2016, contains only seven (07) columns, such as Sl.No., Sy.No., Total Extent of the Sy.No., Name of the field enjoyer, father/husband name, enjoyment land and remarks. Even the list that was filed by the 13 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 respondents along with counter is also the same with that of the subsequent list filed by the petitioners along with the writ petition. However, coming to the subject Survey No.306, some other name has been written by striking off the name of petitioner No.9, Thati Vijayalaxmi. Thus, there are discrepancies between the first list and subsequent list i.e., inclusion of the names of all the petitioners in the first list prepared by respondent No.5 and forwarded through his letter dated 18.04.2016 and deletion of their names except petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 9 in the subsequent list that was forwarded by respondent No.4 to the District Collector along with his letter dated 31.05.2016. On this aspect, there is no explanation from the respondents.
ix) Thus, it is clear that both the lists were prepared in the year 2016. The respondents filed copies of pahani for the year 2019. Survey No.306 is not shown. However, Survey No.307 is being shown as 'Government Land' as against the possessory column. They have not filed copy of pahani for the relevant year i.e., 2016 in which year the said lists were prepared to show that the names of the petitioners were not mentioned as against possessory column. Thus, the conduct of the respondents in not 14 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 filing of pahani for the year 2016 and non-showing the Survey No.306 even in the copy of pahani for the year 2019-20 though shown Survey No.307 appears to be doubtful for the reason the copies of pahanies filed by the petitioners for the years 1993-94 and from 1999-2000 to 2011 show their names as against Survey Nos.306 and 307.
x) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of the respondents that the names of the petitioners were never recorded in revenue records and that they are not in possession of the aforesaid survey numbers cannot be accepted. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure laid down under law.
xi) In fact, the respondents have to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 22.07.1986 in W.A.No.774 of 1986, wherein the Division Bench directed the Government to consider the entire issue giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners therein or their representatives collectively and take a decision with respect to their just claims on equitable grounds. Till a decision is taken by the 15 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 Government, the land would continue to be in possession of respective petitioners.
7. CONTEMPT CASE:
i) It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents disobeyed the interim orders dated 01.09.2021 passed by this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2021 filed in the above writ petition, whereas, it is contended by the respondents that they never disobeyed the said orders by dispossessing the petitioners from the aforesaid lands.
ii) Perusal of cause title of writ petition and the contempt case would disclose that the District Collector, RDO and Tahsildar are the parties to the writ petition. While passing the interim order on 01.09.2021, this Court directed them not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property till 06.09.2021. The said copies of interim order were received by the District Collector as well as the Tahsildar on 03.09.2021. Whereas, the contempt case is filed against the Tahsildar, MPDO, Panchayat Secretary, Technical Assistant from the office of MPDO, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in their individual names contending that the District Collector did not inform the respondents in the contempt case about passing of such interim order and, therefore, the respondents 16 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 herein came to the subject land on 03.09.2021 to plant saplings.
Had the respondents herein come to the subject lands on 03.09.2021 for planting the saplings, the petitioners should have mentioned the said fact in their letter dated 03.09.2021 submitted to the District Collector and the Tahsildar enclosing copies of the aforesaid interim orders. In view of the same, it can be presumed that the respondents herein did not try to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands. Even otherwise, the interim order passed by this Court directing the respondents therein not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. Except respondent No.1 being the Tahsildar, remaining respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are not parties to the said writ petition. There is no direction to respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein vide the aforesaid interim order dated 01.09.2021. Therefore, the question of respondent Nos.2 to 5 violating the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by this Court willfully and deliberately does not arise.
iii) As far as respondent No.1 is concerned, though he is a party to the writ petition and there is a direction to him not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, the petitioner has not filed any proof to that effect. Even in the photographs filed by 17 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 the petitioners, respondent No.1 is not there. Except a bald statement made by the petitioners that respondent No.1 has also violated the aforesaid interim order, they have not filed any proof to that effect. Therefore, the present contempt fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. CONCLUSION:
For the foregoing discussion and observation, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.9.21 guntas and Acs.3.29 guntas in Survey Nos.306 and 307, situated at Rayadandi Revenue Village, Aanthergaon Mandal, Peddapalli District. The respondents are also directed to follow the directions issued by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 22.07.1986 in W.A.No.774 of 1986 in respect of the petitioners and subject lands within one (01) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. C.C. No.1121 of 2021 is closed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
18 KL,J WP No.20741 & CC No.1121 of 2021 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any pending in the writ petition as well as contempt case shall stand closed.
________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 17th September, 2025 Mgr