LawSphereX

Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: E.V. VENUGOPAL

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-22. Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION Nos: 31205 of 2023 & 33434 of 2025 RIT PETITION NO: 31205 OF 2023 Between: Yedamakanti Laxma Reddv, S/o. Venkat Reddy. Aged about 50 years, D. No. 5-89, Bhulaxmi Cam[, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. Rep GPA holder - Yedamakanti Laxmi Narayana Reddy, (Doc no. 3Bl2O21 22. 12. 2021) Yedamakanti Laxmi Naravana Reddy' Sio. Venkat Reddy, Aged years, Business R/o. 1-4:449, Shar6athi Cannal Road, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District- ... PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, I Secretariat, Telangana, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 3 The Addl District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan Revenue Division, Bodhan Nizamabad District.

The Tahsildar, Bodhan Mandal Revenue Office, Bodhan Town, Nizamabad 5 District. t, The Assistant Commtssioner of Police, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. The Circle lnspector of Police, P. S Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 7 The Station House Officer, P. S Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 8 o Sri Ganqadhar, S/o Not known Aged about 38 years, Occ. lr'4andal Officer, b/o. Tasildhar, Bodhan, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503185' 10. Sri Varun, S/o. Not Known, Aged aboul 42 years; Occ. Revenue O/o. Tasildhar, Bodhan, Nizamabad. 1 1 . The Nizam Sugars Limited (NSL), Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Ramesh Babu. 12. Sri P. Viswanadham, S/o. Bala Krishnaiah, Aged about ( 2 years, The Deputy Manager lncharge Core Committee, Nizam Sugars Lim t rd, Shakkar Bhavan, Bodhan, Nizamabad. T. S. Rl/o. H. No. 4-4-20, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. T. S. Head office. S-10-174, Shakkar Bhavan, F atehmaidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. T. S ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lnd a praying that in the circumStances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, I ligh Court may be "the pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, mor r particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\,4andamus declaring the action of Rer; ondent No. 2 to 10 in interfering with the peaceful possession of Petitioners prop )rty i. e. , agricultural land in an extent of Acres 15. 17 guntas out of Acres 40. 0C guntas covered by Sy,nos 689, 691, 692 693, 694 part situated in Narsapr r farm, Achanpalle Shivar, Bodhan It4andal, Bodhan Ir/unicipality, Nizamabac district as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of fundamental rights and cons -'quently direct the Respondents 2nd Respondent to initiate departmental : ctions against the Respondent No.

9 and 10-lA NO: 1 OF 2023 -cumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r; stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou'- may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 10 not to interfere and dispc,r sess the Petitioner , from hrs property, i. e. - agricultural land in an extent of Acre; 15. 17 guntas out of Acres 40. 00 guntas covered by Sy. nos 689, 691. , 692, 693 )94 part situated in Narsapur farm, Achanpalle Shivar, Bodhan [/andal, Err dhan fiilunicipality, Nizamabad District pending disposal of the above writ petitir n pending d isposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 5: SRI L. RAVINDER, AC P, REP. FOR SRI K. MURALIDHAR, GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 to 8: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 11 & 12: SMT P. VIRAJITHA, REP. FOR SRI N. PRAVEEN FII DDY WRIT PETITION NO: 33434 0F 2025 Between: Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy.

Aged about 50 years, R/o. D. No. 5-89, Bhulaxmi camp. Bodhan Mandar, Niizariabad District. ireo bv the GpA horder Doc. No. 38t2b21, dt. 22. 1r. 2021 i;;;;;k;nli"i;;ii,6;ffi; Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy- Aged about 49 years, Occ. euiine;, Ry". -1;_'4,i9, Sharbathi Cannal Road, Bodhan Town ancl Mandal, Nizamabad District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department. Secretariat, Telangana. Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nizamabad District Nizamabad. J The Addl District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan Revenue Division. Bodhan Town. Nizamabad District. 5 The Tahsildar, Bodhan Mandal Revenue Office, Bodhan Town. Nizamabad District. 6. The Village Revenue Assistant, Pandu Tarfa Village, Bhodan Town, Nizamabad District 7. The Circle lnspector of Police, p. S Bodhan, Nizamabad Dlstrict. B. The Station House Officer, P. S Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 9 The Nizam. Sugars Limited (NSL), Rep.

by its Authorized Signatory Sri Ramesh Babu. '10. Sri P. Viswanadham, S/o. Bala Krishnaiah, Aqed about 62 vears. The Deoutv l\rlanager lncharge Core Committee, Ntzam S-ugars Limited, Shat kar Bh;v;n1 Bodhan, Nizamabad. T. S. Rl/o. H. No. 4-4-20,-Bodhan, NizamaOiO Oiitrict. T. S. Head office. 5-10-174, Shakkar Bhavan, Fatehmaidan noaO, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. T. S ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of [Vlandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more -particularly Respondent No. 6 in obstructing the petitioner from enjoying his agricultural land in an extent of Acres 15. 17 guntas out of Acres 40. 00 guntas covered by Sy.

nos 689, 691, 692 693, 694 part situated in Narsapur farm, Achanpalle Shivar, Bodhan [Vlandal, Bodhan I\,4un icipa lity, Nizamabad District under the guise of the proceeding issued by the Respondent No. 3 vide procd. No. 43/598/2023 Dt. 2710512023 as illegal, arbitrary, unr )nstitutional and in iolation of Article 14 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ; 'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 6 not to obstruct the Petitioner's pea: >ful possession and '1 enjoyment of his agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 5-1 7 gtr; :ut of Ac. 40-00 gts in Survey Nos. 689, 691,692,693, and 694 (part), situatec at Narsapur Farm, Achanpalle Shivar, Bodhan lvlandal, Bodhan Municipality, District, 'lrzamabad under the pretext of the impugned proceedings bearing Proc i. No. 43/598/2023 daled 2710512023 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED NAWAZ HYDET ALI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 6: SRI L. RAVINDER, AC P, REP. FOR SRI K. MURALIDHAR. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 & 8: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 9 & 10: SMT P. VIRAJITHA, t EP. FOR SRI N. PRAVEEN Fll :DDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION Nos. 312O5 of 2O 23 e,33434 of 2025 Dated :22. 12. 2025 Between : Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy. Petitioner And The State of Teiangana, rep. by its Principal Secretar,v, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hl,derabad and others. -.. Respondents. : COMMON ORDER: WP No. 31205 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India for the following relief : "... to declare the action of the respondent No. 2 to 10 in interfering rn ith the peacefui possession of the petitioner,s propertv i. e.

agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 15. 17 Gts. , out of Ac. 40. 00 Gts. , covered by Sy. Nos. 6B9,69l, 692,693 and 694 part situated in Narsapur farm, Achanpalle Shivar, Bodhan Mandal, Bodhan Municipalitv, Nizamabad District as illegal, arbitrarv and in violation of fundamental rights and consequentially direct the respondent No. 2 to initiate departmental action against the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 ..... " WP No. 33434 of 2025 is filed by the pelitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : to declare the action of the respondents more particularlv respondent No. 6 in obstructing the petitioner from enjoying his agricultr_rral land in an extent of acres 15. 17 guntas E- \ Jlsl-{ -:j \ Page 2 of8 out of acres 40. 00 guntas covered by Sy. Nos. t89, 691, 692,693 ard 694 part situated in Narsapr. i*-, {. chanpalle Shtvar, Bodhan Mandal, Bodhan l,4unicipality, Nizanr Lbad District under guise of the proceeding issued Uy lhe tt-r. . ,, ;pondent No.

3 vide Proceedings No. A3/598/2ObS OI. ZZ. OS. 2023,:s illegal, arbitrary.. unconstitutional and in violation of Article I 1 ancl 300A of the Constitution of India. . . ,, 2. Heard Sri Mohammed Nawaz Hyder Al , learned counsel for the petitioner in Wp No. 33434 of 2O2S and reprer;r nting M/s. Pillix Lar. t, Firm, learned counsel for the peti[ioner in WI, No. 31205 of 2023, Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government l) eader appearlng on behalf ol learned Governmcnt pleader for Reverr tr: Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy and M rs. P. Viraj itha, Iearned counsel reprei rntlllg Sri N. praveen Reddy, learncd counsel for thc respondent Nos 11 and 12 in Wp No. 31205 of 2023 and respondent Nos. 9 and t () in Wp No. 33434 of 2025. 3. Since the peritioner in both these writ retitions is onc and the same and the respondcnts are also simirar rnd the issues arc interconnected, this CourL deems i[ appropriate Lc lispose ol the same by way ol the present common ordcr by taking L re pleadings in Wp No.

33434 of 2O2S lor consideration. 4. Thc learncd counse I for the petitiortr_. submits that the petitioner aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and mal r fide actions of the respondents, particularly respondent No. 6, in obstr:cting his peaceful l'age J of 8 possession and enjoyment of Ac. 15-i7 guntas of agricultural land, being part of Ac. 40. 00 guntas covered by Sy. Nos. 6Bg,69l,692,693 and part of 694, si[uated at Narsapur F. arm, Achanpalle Shivar, Bodhan Manclal, Bodhan Municipali[r, Nizamabad District, under the guise of Proceedrngs No. A3/598/2023 dated 2T 05. 2023 issued by respondent No. 3, r,vithout lurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14 and 3OOA ol the Constitution of [ndia hled the present writ petition.

(r) Prior to 1998, the petitioner supplied sugarcane to Nizam Sugars Limited, Bodhan ([or short,,NSL,,) and as NSL failed to clear its dues, it conductcd a public auction to liquidate its liabilities in which the petitioncr participated and purchased land to an extent of Ac. 6_12 gunras in Sy. No. 324 and Ac. 7-15 guntas in Sy. No. 32 l, Satapur Village, paying full considcrarion and obtaining sale conhrmations. A registered sale deed dated 29. 09. 2001 was executed in his favour lor Ac. 7_15 glrntas in Sv. No. 32 l, bur NSL faited to execute the sale deed for another extent of land ardmeasuring Ac. 6- 12 guntas alleging prior allotment to u'eaker sectior-r benehciaries. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 10 I 5 1 of 200 1 , pursuant to which NSL assured allotment of equivalent alternale land and requested hrs participarion in a second auction, whercin he acquired land to an extent of Ac. O-2 i guntas and Ac. 9-O5 guntas in Sv. Nos.

683 -TO4, Achanpalle Village (Narsapur Farm Shivar), paying full consideration and r. ,r,as deliverecl possession of . -q4={ \ \ f'age 1 of8 Ac. 15- 1 7 guntas, comprising lands from the s :cond auction and alternate allotment. (b) The pcti[ioner has maintaincd pear:c I rl possession since and the lands werc never includecl in u. orker alior r re nts undcr G. O. Rt. No. 926 dated 29. 12. 2OOa. Subsequenrlr,, NSL at t mptcd interference, prompting O. S. No. S of 2O2O belore the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, whcrein an in[erim injurrction u-as grart :d- NSL's appeal in CMA No. 3 of 2022 and CRP No. 1 16 of 2023',r'erc cli ;missed, conhrming the injunction and the Hon'ble Supremc Court in iLP (C) No. 11809 of 2023, by order dated 03. O7. 2023, permitted the n: itioncr's possession and restrained an1. interference. Despitc clear.

jr-Lrl :ial directions, NSL and its agents, aided by local political influence, ccr tinued interference, including obstruction of a Court-sanctioned snn er under orders in IA No. 53 of 2021 on 17. O9. 2O23, lorciblr,. evictiny the petitioner ancl demolishing a shed. (c) F urther, responde nt No. 3, acting on m I leading information from NSL, issued direclions to Village Rcvenuc ( ) licers to watch the land, which is wl'rolly unauthorized and politic. LL\. motivated. The petitioner had filed W. P. No. 312O5 of 2023, whcre ir. his Court, by order dated 09. 11. 2023, directed respondent Nos. 2 to 8 r ot to interfere with the petitioner's possession over land aclme asuring \c. 15 17 guntas in Sy. Nos. 689, 691,692,693 and part of 694. Nor r,' Lhstanding thrs, on Pagc 5 of 8 22. 10. 2025, aL around 17 OO hours, respondent No. 6, accompanied by respondents Nos. 7 and B, obstructed the petitioner from entering the land under the guise of Proceedings No. A4/59a12023 dated 27 . O5.

2023, refusing to acknou,ledge the binding nature of the order. (d) Thc petitioner had earlier filed W. P. No. 33086 of 2024, which was withdrau,n rvith liberty to file afresh on 31. 7O. 2O25 due to inadvertent errors. [n the circumstances stated, the petitioner has no efficacious :rltcrnative remecll. and seeks Lhe induigence of this Court to exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India resLrainirg thc responden[s from interfering with his lau,ful possession over the schedule property. 5. Learned counsel representing Nizam Sugars Ltd. , submits [hat the allegation of forcib]e dispossession is misconceived, as all aclions by the rcspondenls ucre lawful, bona and within fide statutory authority to prolect Govcrnme nt/ NSF lands, verify boundaries and ensure compliance r,r'ith rules. An1, obstruction was purely adminrstrative, pending verification of ownership and encumbrances and not.

driven Y4' mala political ftdes, influence or collusion. The lands are partly covered by Government notificatrons and prior allotments and the petitioner's claim of ultlnterrup[ed possession or entitlement to alternate land is disputed ancl subject to civil proceedings. Prior Court orders do not exempt lhc petitioner from due process or statutory l'age 6 of8 compliance. No harassment or loss was caused i nd the secks to bypass lawful proccdures. Respon:::nt No. 9 encroached upon the petitioner's [an<l and the offtc al responclents acted only to protect NSF lancls involvir-rg th( lnterests farmers. 6. On the other hand, learned Assist:rn (iovernment submits that the ofhcial respondents, being statLltr ry authorities with the duty to protect and saleguard thc larrds belor-rging Sugars Limited, which are treaLed as Govcrnm: rt/ NSF acted slrictly in accordance r.

l,ith law, rules and t s ablished It is contended that the actions complainecl ol v 're undertaken upon noticing attempts of illegal encroachment an I boundary by the petitioners under the guise of interim injlrr. r tion orders s;uch actions were purely administrative in r turr:, maintain status quo and prevent unaulhorisecl rccupation verification of tille, boundaries and encumbLrr )ces. It submitted that the official respondents neilher a,: ed rnaLa collusion urith any private parties or political in1'l r rnce. nor facilitated any encroachment as atle ged. Thc inj ,r rc tion orders upon by the petitioners does no[ confer any righ [o trYpass scruLiny or exempt him from due process o I arv. Therefore, apprehension expressed by the pctitioner that th,' official Pag. 7 ol-8 I are interfering with his lawful possession is wholly misconceived, I unfounded and unsustainable and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7.

Upon hearing the respectrve learned counsel and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the dispute with regard to possession and enjoyment of the subject land is already seized of by the competent Civil Court in O. S. No. S of 2O2O, wherein an order of interim injunction hzrs been granted in lavour of the petrttoner. The said injunction has attained hnality at the interlocutory stage, having been affirmed by this Court in the connected proceedings and further upheld by the Hon'ble Suprcme Court in SLP (C) No. 11809 of 2023, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while protecting [he petitioner's possession, directed Lhe petitioner not to proceed with any construction activitics on the subject land. It is also nol in dispute that this Court, while dealing u'ith W. P. No_31205 of 2023, by order dated I 09. 11. 2023, has protected rhe intercsr of the petitioner by directrng the respondent authoritics not Lo interlcre with his possession over the land admeasuring Ac.

15-17 guntas in Sy. Nos. 689, 691, 692,693 and part of 694. In vieu. o[ thc fact that the cii,il d jspute relating to title and possession is sub judice before the competent Civil Court, that the petitioner's possession already stands protccted by subsisting judicial orders and that the petitioner has been cxpressly restrained from Page 8 o[ 8 undertaking any construction activity on Lhe sul! rct land, it is made clear that any violation of the said restraint shz I be treated as an abuse of process of law and shalt be subject tc appropriate judicial intervention. In these circumstances, no furthcr rdjudication on the same cause is warranted in the prescnt writ p: irions. Accordingly, these rr"-ri t petitions are disposed of, leaving it . P rrr to thc parties to work out their respective rights and remedies t r fore the competent Civil Court. 8. With the above observations and d r ections. these wril petilions are disposed of. No order as to the costs 9.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous peli,. i r rs pertding, rf anv, shall stand closed. SI) . P. PONNA KRISHNA ;I STANT REGISTRAR ASS //TRUE COPY// r\ ' I SECTION OFFICER I To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Departme E r cretariat, Telangana, \ Hyderabad, State of Telangana- 2. The District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. ad. 3. The Addl District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizanrir [)i rision, Bodhan Town, 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan Revenue Nizamabad District. 5. The Tahsildar, Bodhan Mandal Revenue Office, Boc I an Town, Nizamabad District. 6. The Village Revenue Assistant, Pandu Tarfa Vil age, Bhodan Town, Nizamabad District I 7. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 8. The Circle lnspector of Police, P. S Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 9. The Station House Officer, P. S Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 10. The Authorized Signatory Sri Ramesh Babu, Nizam Sugars Limited (NSL) 11. Sri P. Viswanadham, S/o.

Bala Krishnaiah, Aged about 62 years, The Deputy lVanager lncharge Core Committee, Nizam Sugars Limited, Shakkar Bhavan, Bodhan, Nizamabad. T. S. R/o. H. No. 4-4-20, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. T. S. Head office. 5-10-17 4, Shakkar Bhavan, Fatehmaidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. T. S 12. One CC to tvI/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM, Advocate [OPUC] 13 One CC to SRI MOHAMI\4ED NAWAZ HYDER ALl, Advocate [OPUC] 'l4. One CC to SRI N. PRAVEEN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 15. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 16. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 7. Two CD Copies BSR GJP HIGH COURT 2211212025 DATED: / ,. ? -:- : lf1 -. 4 a. ' () { r. \, ? tJlt{2m ORDER COMMON . / i) SPAIcr{i of 2023 & 33434ef WP. Nos. 31205 I I THE WRIT PETTTIONS' OF BOTH DISPOSING COSTS WITHOUT \? b \r w

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.