Koluguri Narayana Reddy v. The State Of Telangana And 4 Others

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.17440 OF 2020 ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. A. Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.17.385 guntas in Survey Nos.112/E, 124/1/A, 126/B, 128/A, 222/1, 293/A, 297/A/1/1, 298/1/A, 300/1/A, 300/2, 301/1/A, 302/1/A, 302/2, 303/1/A, 303/2, 304/1/A, 304/2/A, 305/1/A, 305/2,306/2, 307/A/1, 308/A1, 311/2/A, 335/1/A, 336/1/A, 33/A/1/1, 347/1/1, 348A/1/1, 355A/1, 356A/2, 52/A/1 and 59/R, situated at Katkoor Village, Akkannapet Mandal, Siddipet District. In proof of the same, he has filed copies of latest pass book, title deed and 1B Register. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondents have extended Rythu Bandhu benefit to the petitioner up to 2019 and, thereafter, stopped the same from 2020 onwards.

3. In view of the said specific allegation, this Court directed learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue to get specific

KL,J W.P. No.17440 of 2020 instructions with regard to the same. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have received complaint from the son of the petitioner and, therefore, they are not paying the amount under Rythu Bandhu Scheme to the petitioner from 2020 onwards.

4. It is relevant to note that on the complaint received from the son of the petitioner, the respondents cannot deny the said benefit under Rythu Bandhu Scheme to the petitioner. If the son of the petitioner has any claim over the aforesaid land, he has to approach competent jurisdictional Civil Court concerned, but he cannot request respondent Nos.2 to 4 to stop the benefit under Rythu Bandhu Scheme. The petitioner is aged about 73 years and he is an agriculturist. Denying the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner on the letter addressed by his son is illegal and against the very spirit of the aforesaid Scheme.

5. In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to submit proposal to respondent No.2 and on receipt of the said proposal, respondent No.2 shall pay the amount under Rythu Bandhu Scheme to the petitioner herein from the year 2020 onwards. Both respondent Nos.2 and 4

KL,J W.P. No.17440 of 2020 shall complete the aforesaid exercise within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 2nd November, 2022 Mgr