Lingampalli Ravi v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-08-18. Lingampalli Ravi v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original J urisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10648 OF 2020 Between: 1. Lingampalli Ravi, S/o Appaiah, Rio Kamepalli Village and lr,4andal, Khammam District. 2. Puchakayala Ramakrishna, S/o Appa Rao, R/o Kamepalli village and lt4andal, Khammam District. 3. I\,4othukuri Venkateswarlu, S/o Pichaiah, R/o Kamrepalli Village and [t4andal, Khammam District. 4. Puchakayala Venkateswwarlu, S/o Agaiah R/o Thallagudem, Kamepalli lt/andal, Khmmam District. 5. Puchakayala Lingaraju, Sio Agaiah, R/o Thallagudem, Kamepalli tt4andal Khammam Distrrct. 6. Puchakayala Appa Rao, S/o Janaki R/o Thallagudem, Kamepalli [t4andal, Kham mam District, 7. Puchakayala Erra Narasaiah, S/o Venkataswamy, R/o Thallagudem, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District B. Nelluri Venkiatappahai, S/o Gopaiah Fl/o Thallagudem, Kamepalli It4andal, Khammain District. ..
PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Tribal Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Additional Agent to Government Project Officer,ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam, District a Agency Divisional Officer, Khammam, District 4. The Tasildar, Kamepalli, Khammam, District ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o{ lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or wnt, particularly in the nature or Mandamus duly declarrng action of the respondents in trying to evict the petrtioners from their lands to an extent of Ac. 11. 00 in Sy No. 640/a of Kamepalli Village, by virtue of orders in Clt4A No.
1112020 of The Additional Agent to Government, Project officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justrce and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb the petitioners possession of the said lands until they avail the remedy of Revision against the said orders before the Government of Telangana in the interest of justice. 'f lA NO: OF 2020 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 stay all further proceedings in LTR Case No. 3l2016lKmpl in respect of lands to an extent of Ac. 1 1 . 00 in Sy No. 6401a of Kamepalli Village in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.
10648 OF 2O2O ORDER: The present u,rit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from their lands to an extent of Ac. 11. 00 gts. in Sy. No. 640/A of Kamepalli village, by virtue of orders in CMA No. 11/2019 passed by the Additional Agent to Government Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, as being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles ol natural justice a consequential direction to the '*,ith respondent authorities not to disturb the petitioners possession of the said lands until they avail the remedy of revision against the said orders before the Government of Telangana in the interest of justice. 2. The present writ petition is taken up for hearing today, i. e. 18. O8. 2O2O, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the writ averments would submit that the petitioner has already approached the l"t respondent authority and has prelerred a revision being aggrieved by the order passed by the 2"d respondent authority in CMA. No. 1 1 of 20 19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner rvould lurther submit that along u'ith the revision petition, the petitioner also filed a stay application seeking st:ry ol' implementation oI the order passed by the 2n(l respon(lent ) authority in CMA No. l i of 2019, by the 4th respondent. Since, the petitioners are in possession of the land for a long time and if the 4rr, respondent authority gives effect to the orders of the 2"d respondent authority, the revision preferred by the petitioners nould become infructuous and academic. 5.
On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare would submit that the petitioners have suffered all through in the LTR proceedings as u'ell as before the 2"d respondent authority and the further preferring of revision by the petitioners herein is only to drag on the matters, as the petitioners are non-tribal, while the land is requirecl to be repossessed b1, the authorities to be given for the benefit of tribals. Thus, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare would submit that anv further indulgence shown by this Court would not only frustrate the object for which the Land Transfer Regulation has been enacted, but would also prevent the authorities in taking steps to provide lands to tribals to which they are entitled to under the Act. 6. Considering the submissions made as above, while being in agreement r.
vith the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Social We lfale on the larger issue of object to be achieved under the Regulalion of 1959 as amendcd, hou,evcr, cannot bc circuml,ented u. ithout the affccted parties cxhausting remedies provided under the Regulation, u,hich interalia includes preferring of revision before the Government. Since, in the facts of thc present case, the petitioners having already liled a revision petition before the 1. r respondent authority being aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent authority in CMA No. 1 1 of 20 19, this Court is of the view that the 1"t respondent authority can be directed to dispose of the stay application as n'ell as the revision preferred by the petitioners within a time frame. 7. Having regard to the above, the l. t respondent authority is hereby directed to dispose of the stay application fi1ed by the revision petitioners on 05. 08.
2O20 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by aflording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein and also take steps to dispose of the revision preferred n,ithin a lurther period of four months therelrom. Further, till such time, the 1"r respondent authority takes up the stay application liled by the petitioners in the revision prelerred against the order of the 2n(l respondent eruthority, the 4th respondent authority shall not take anv further steps seeking to implement the order passed by the 2na respondent authority in CMA No. 1 1 of 20 19 thereby dispossessing the petitioner, if no such action is already taken. 8. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the iight of this final order. No order as to costs. SD/. M. MANJULA ASSISTANT REGI R ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, of Telangana' Secretariat' 1.
The Principal Secretary Tribal Welfare, State Hvderabad officer'ITDA' Bhadrachalam' 2. iil;i;;i["al Agent to Government Project Khammam, District g District Aoencv Divisional Officer' Khammam, Khammam District + ifie Tdsitdar, Kamepalli. (OPUC) 5, o"; Ct to-sri. P. Rama Sharana Sharma' Advocate Telangana - at w"itj'. e, High court for the state of o i;; 66. io cC tot Sociri Hvderabad (OUT) 7 Two CD CoPies Pt\l nlrJH UUUK I DATEO:18lOBl2O2O . --<: ,/- - (---- ) ORDER WP. No. 10648 of 2020 e, '( 2 7 AUG 2020 'x * * Disposing of the WP Without costs. 1
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.