Pole Susheela and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 4 others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-19. Pole Susheela and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 4 others. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
[ 32s61 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY permoN iruRlr No: 33532 oF zo22 Between: '1 . Pole Susheela, D/o: Late Lachaiah, aged about years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Devarakonda Village and Town, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2. Pole Vajramma, D/o: Late Lachaiah, Aged about years, occ. Housewife, 3. Pole Yadaiah, S/o: Late Lachaiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Agricultural Labour All are Rl/o Devarakonda Village and Town, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... PETITlONERS AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devarakonda, Naglonda District. 5.
The Tahsildar, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issued a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus the action of the respondents No. 3 to 5 in not allotting the land to the petitioners in pursuance of the letter CLRs Ref. B4l614197 dated O2tO111998 issued by the 2nd respondent though three decades lapsed and not considering the representations dated 0110812022, 2710912021 , 1611212019, 0810112014, 0810112014, 1310612012, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional the violative of Principles of natural justice besides violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constrtution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents to provide an alternative agricultural land to the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 3- 00gts in pursuance of the proceedings in cLRs Ret.
B4t614/97 dated 02-01-1998 issued by the 2nd respondent and also to hand over the possession of the land in sy. No. 750 to an extent of Ac 0-20gts situated at Devarakonda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District by considering the above represen tations. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide an alternative agricultural land to the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 3-00gts also to hand over the possession of the land in sy. No. 750 to an extent of Ac 0-20gts situated at Devarakonda village and Mandal, Nalgonda District by considering the representations dated 01-og-2o22, 27-09-2021 , 16-12-2019, 08-01-2O14, OB-01-2014, 13-06-2012, pending disposat of the main Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PONNAM MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY UIRIT PETITION No. 33532 of 2o22 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not allotting the land to the petitioners in pursuance to the letter CLRs Ref. B4l614/97, dated O2. 01. 1998 addressed by respondent No. 2 and consequently prayed for other appropriate reliefs. 2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and pemsed the record. 3. It is stated that the father of the petitioners was the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 3. 2O gts. , in Sy. No. 75O, situated at Devarakonda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, by virtue of the patta assigned by the then Tahsildar on 11. 12. 1951 under the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 fasli (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder.
It is further stated that the said land has been acquired by the respondents on the assurance that they will allot alternative suitable land in lieu of compensation. [t is further stated that on the representation made by the petitioners, respondent No. 2 passed. -a6 order dated O2. Ol. l99a in CLRs Ref . 84 I 614 /97 II CVBR, J wp 33532 2022 directing respondent No. 3 to examine the availabiliez of the government lancl fit for cultivation and eligibility of the claimants and take action for either assignment of alternative government land or purchase thc patta land. In pursuance of thc said order, the then District Collector passed orders vide CLR File No. El /29061 l()97 , dated 09. 1 1. 1997 to provide land. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after decades from the date of acquisition of the land and even after several representations being made by tl're petitioners, the respondents have not allotted aiternative suitzrble lancl in lieu of compensation. 4.
Learned r:ounscl for the petitioners has submitted that by virtue of the pal. ta assigned in the year 1951 under the provisions of the Act, the petitioners are entitled either for compensation or allotmenl of alternative suitable land. 5. In vieu of thc above submissions, it is evident that the respondents acquired (he land belonging to the petitioners, father on the assurance that thcy will allot alternative suitable land in lieu of compensation. However, even after decades and several representa tior-r s, the rcspondents have failed to adhere to the same. This inaction on tl-re part of the respondents amounts to violation of Articles I zl, 2 I and 3O0A of the Const,itution of India. \_ CVI]R. J wp_33532 2022 6.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners are eligible and the assignment has been granted as stated by the petitioners in the year 1951, the respondents are directed to pay compensation or allot suitable Iand. If the petitioners are noL entitled for allotment of suitable land or if there is no suitable land within thc vicinity of Nalgonda, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order duly taking into consideration the letter addressed by respondent No. 2 in CLRs Rel. B4 l614 197, dated O2. 01. 1998, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of sx (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. N.
SRIHARI AS SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Princioal Secretary' The State of Telangana' Revenue Department' e::'F*'r? II*'---'"'[ffi 2 3 4 i[:[sJ:"J,:"Ji"'ii#:ii? ; 5 6 },. 'ifl,itffi,lf"j,JE,tj*:"", 7 iI:it:r:3! 3? JlFtrgi Hyderabad [OUTI 8 Two CD CoPies TJ BS o I HIGH COURT DATED:1911212024 1 HE ST4, B (: o e (, ) o (l 21 FEB ? W5 ? ORDER + * arJ WP. No. 33532 ot 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ ,{ 2\ \0>
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.