Boini Sangamma v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: A.ABHISHEK REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-07-13. Boini Sangamma v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 10120 OF 2020 Between: 1. Boini Sangamma, W/o Boini Venkatesham Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Yelgoi Village, Dharasargre l\,4andal, Sanga Reddy District 2. Jangli Bujji, W/o Padanna Aged bout 43 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Yelgoi Village, Dharasargre [\/andal, Sanga Reddy District ... PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District 3, The Tahsildar, Dharasargre Mandal, Sanga Reddy District 4. Grampanchayat, Yelgoi,, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary Dharasargre Mandal, Sanga Reddy 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 issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of It4andamus declaring the proposed action of the Respondents in demolishing and dispossessing the Petitioners irom their tin shed Houses Construted over the Gautan land allotted to the Petitioners under Indiramma Housing Scheme, situated at Yelgoi Village, Dharasargre Mandal Sanga Reddy District as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the tin shed houses and dispossess the Petitioners from their Houses Constructed over Gautan land alloted to the petitioners Under lndiramma Housing Scheme.
lA NO: 1 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 direct the Respondents not to demolish and dispossess the Petitioners from their tin shed houses constructed over the Gautan land alloted under lndiramma Housing Scheme, Situated at Yelgoi Villge, Dharasargre [\,4andal, Sanga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. NAJEEB KHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAMPANCHAYAT The Court made the following: ORDER THI' H()N'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY W. P. No. 1O 12 O of 2O2O ORDER: Heard t]'rc lt arncd counsel tbr the petitioners anci tl. t: Icarncd Government Pleac:er for Revenuc for respondent Nos. 1 to ll and the learncd Standing Counsel appearing for respondent. Nr>. 4-Gram Panchayat.
With their consent, the writ petition is d ispc,sed of at the stage of admission. The main grievance ol the petitioners is that even though the)' are in posscssion of the tin shed houses construcle(l over the Gautan lancl grarrted to them under Indiramma Hou:;ing Scheme, the official respondents, without issuing any notice to Lhem, are tryir-rg to disposes them and that the olficial respondents u,ith a malal'idc intcntion havc issued the eviction notices to thcir spoLlscs. The lcarned Standing Counsei, on instructions. hzLs stated that the pctitioners have not being allotted any h:uses by the (irarn Pancha),at and under thc lndiramma Ilousing Scl'reme onh, amount for consrruction will be given. Even the allegerl possession certilicate issuer. l by the Tahsildar is a bogus one That the husbands of the petitioners \. r,ere issued with thr notices and action $,ill trc tal-. en in accordancc with the larv.
Learnc<l counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the fact that the rcspectivc husbands ol the petitioners werc scn'ed noticcs b1' thc (lrarn [)anchzrval and the petitioncrs h:,r,c zrlso li]cd explanation to thc samc by registered post u'ith ac<r. rou le dgme nt WP No 10120 of 2020 AAR J due. The learned Standing Counsel has stated that the Gram Panchayat has not received any such explanations In view of the rival submissions made by both the counsel, the petitioners are directed to submit their explanations to the notices daLed 02. O7 . 2020 and 04. O7 . 2O2O issued in the name ol the husbands of the pctitioners, u'ithin a pcriod of tu,o u'ecks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such explanations being received, the Gram Panchal,at shall take such explanations ir-rto consideration and pass ncccssan' r>rdcrs, strictlr, in 'l'i1l accordancc rvith the lau'.
such time, the respondcnts arc directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioners, A copy ol the order passed by the Gram Panchal,'at shall be communicated to the petitioners individually. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- I. NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR al //TRUE GOPY// ) ! \ l/' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District 3. The Tahsildar, Dharasargre lvlandal, Sanga Reddy District 4. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat, Yelgoi, Dharasargre N/andal' Sanga Reddy District 5. One CC to Sri A. Naieeb Khan, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for Grampanchayat, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies SM \ HIGH COURT DATED:1310712020 . ), oF;8,, . i -v .
rN J, a< ri't + o t- \ f- + 5;H . ORDER WP. No. 10120 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS I v
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.