Tagaram Nagaiah v. The Tahsildar
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-01-04. Tagaram Nagaiah v. The Tahsildar. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
33e3 ] [ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT APPEAL NO: 376 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order dated 23-01-2020 Passed in W P No 41317 of 2O14 on the file of the High Court. Between: Tagaram Nagaiah, , Sio Peraiah, Aged about 91 years, Occ. Cultivation, Ri. /o Peraigudem Village, Aswaraopet lvlandal, Khammam District. ... APPELLANT AND 1. The Tahsildar, , Aswaraopet Mandal, Khammam District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, , Palvancha, Khammam Districl. 3. The District Collector, , Khammam District. 4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5. The State of Telangana, , Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. '1st 6.
The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Floor, B. R. K. Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 7. The Agricultural Market Committee, , Dammapeta Market Yard, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District Rep. by its Secretary 8. The Telangana lrrigation Development Corporation, , D. No. 8-2-67 41218, Near Ranga Reddy District Collector Office, Road No. 3, Bnajara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034 Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director 9. The Circle lnspector of Police, , Aswaraopet Police Station, Aswaraopet Mandal, Khammam District. 10. The Sub-lnspector of Police, , Aswaraopet Police Station, Aswaraopet Mandal, Khammam District. 1 1 . Sunnam Nagamani, , W/o Not known to the petitioner Chairman of Dammapeta Agriculture Market Committe Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District ... RESP. NDENTS lA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 7th respondent not to proceed with the construction in respect of land I admeasuring Ac. 2. 00 cents in Sy. No. 12281139, out of the total land to an extent of Ac. 5-00 gts. , situated at Peraigudem Village and Aswaropet Mandal, Khammam District, pending disposal of the main writ appeal 1A NO: 4 OF 2023 Petition under Section 'l 51 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 1 to 10 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac. 2. 00 cents in Sy. No, 12281139, out of the total land to an extent of Ac. 5-00 gts. , situated at Peraigudem Village and Aswaropet Mandal, Khammam District by suspending the operation of the Judgment. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI BALA MURALI Y Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI T. SRIKANTH REDDY, GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRI BANDARI SHANKAR, AGP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for Respondent No.
7: SMT. G. NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No. 8: SRI B. SHIV KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos. 9 & 10: SRI M. ROOPENDER, GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER --7 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF IT]STICE KARADHE AND HON'BLE STICEANIL rit A eal N JUDGMENT, Edr rhe Hon'bb rhe ChieJJutue Alok Arudbe) Mr. Y. Bala Murali, learne d counsel for the appellant; Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Governmenr Pleader for Revenue l cpre sents respondents No. 1 to 4; Mr. Bandari Shankar, learned Assistant Govcrnment Plcader for Agriculrure represents respondent No. 5; Mr. M. Roopendcr, learned Governmcnt Pleadcr for Home represents rcspondent No. 9 and 10. 2 This intra court appeal is lllcd against ordcr dated 23. 01. 2020, passcd by a Iearned Single by which writ peuuon preferrcd Judge, bv tl. rc appellant 221. , W P. No. 41,311 of 2014 has been drsmisscd 3. Facts g1\11rg rise to {iling of this appeal briefly srated are rhat the appellant claims to be the owner of land admeasuri-ng Acs. -5.
00 guntas of Survey No. 1228/139 siruated at Peraigudem Village, Aswaraopet Mandal, I(hammam Disuict (brie fly 'the subiect land' hcrcina[ter). According to rhe appellanr, rhc subjc:ct land was assigncd to him under thc Tclangana Assrgned I-ands (Prchibidon o[ Transfers) Lct, 1917. Respondent No'7 started drggng a 'fhereupon' the borewell on the land bclonging to the appcllant' the learncd Single appeliant filed a writ peciti. on before Judge' LearnedSingleJudge,bvanorderdared230l'2020,hasdismisscd the writ petition. In the aforesaid facrual background' the ptesent appeal has been frled' 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because in the patta<1ar passbook, boundaries oF the subject land ought not to have have not becn dehned, learned Single Judge dismissed the wnt petition preferred by the appellant' 5. We have considered the submissions made by learncd counsel for the appellant and perused the record 6.
Adrnittedly, the patta certificate, which has been issued in the yezr 1977, does not show any boundaries. There is no sub-division of Survey No. 1228. Respondents have also disputed the facrum o[ allotment of land to the appellaot and have stated that, in fact, the subject land was inirially allottcd to Irrigation Department, which was re-allotted to rcspondent No. 7. Thus, it is evident that there is a dispute with regard to tide of the land belongrng to the appellant. In any case, thc disputed question of tide cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a procecding under Arttcle 226 of the Constitution of Indra 7. For the aforcmentioned reasons, we do not find any ground to drflcr with the vicw takcn by Iearncd Single However, Judge. liberry is reserved to the appellaflt to tal(e recoursc to such remedy, as may be available to him in law to establish his tide 8. With the aforcsard liberry, the Writ Appeal is dismrssed.
No COS tS As a sequcl, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. . 1 .. - - SD/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUW R ISTRAR er //TRUE COPY// q SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Bala Murali Y Advocate [OPUC] ior the State of Telangana' tOUl]^. i. iil CCsio OP For Home, Hish Court . -. High court for the state of Telangana-. 5: i;; cc. io cp For ngric-uttur6, . [O1JT] i. r*" cci i" Gp For R6venue, High" court for the state of Telangana. [oUT] S. One CC to Srt. G. Neeraja Reddy, Advocate(OPUC) 6. One CC to Sri B. Shiv Kumar, Advocate(OPUC) 7. Two CD CoPies MBC GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 0410112024 g sTArg 1tr ( q 5 202[ a JAll 3 24 r=t i t z1) D N cr' JUDGMENT WA. No. 376 ot 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
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.