Arvapalli Venkatesham v. The State Of Telangana,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION Nos.17565 and 22465 of 2014 BETWEEN Adi Jagan Rao and others.
... PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.01.2016 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 1.
Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?
No 2.
Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
No 3.
Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
No
COMMON ORDER:
In both these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is similar that the revenue authorities, respondents 2 to 5, have visited their lands, allegedly, at the instance of a local politician and on representation that the lands of the petitioners, in fact, belong to the AP Bhoodan Yagna Board, directed the petitioners to vacate the lands. Petitioners state that the lands are purely private patta lands and registered sale deeds are executed in their favour by their vendors and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued by the revenue authorities.
2. When these writ petitions were initially take up for hearing, keeping in view the order of the Division Bench in WP.No.2674 of 2007 dated 13.02.2007, interim direction was granted against the respondents.
3. Now the fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit specifically stating in para 7 as under:
"7. It is submitted that the AP Bhoodan Yagna Board in their letter No BYB/10/2014 dated 2.7.2014 has addressed the Daya Dandekar that in the board meeting held on 9-1-2006 and the Board had unanimously resolved and made a decision that the lands in Sy.No.65/2 (0.28) acres, Sy.No.707/2 (4.26) Acres, 708/2 (4.26) Acres total 10.00 Acres allotted to Smt. Kusumtai Dandekar by the Bhoodan Board and deleted from the purview of the Bhoodan Board, treating the land as Sevashram Lands of Sri. Gopal Rao Dandekar and this clearly shows that this land is deleted from the Bahoodan lands, this land also do not come under the purview of Bhoodan land.
The Board again in its letter Dt:02-07-2004 stated that earlier Board acting under Pressure compelled to issue a letter dated 29-5-2014 to the MRO Mancherial and requested him to re-enter the name of Bhoodan by deleting the names of existing Pattedars, and in the said letter, the Board has again reconfirmed the BHOODAN BOARD RESOLUTION made by the A.P. BHOODAN YAGNA BOARD DT: 16TH January 2006 as such subject land had been DELETED from the Purview of the Bhoodan Board treating the land as "SEVA ASHRAM LAND" of Sri Gopal Rao Dandekar and all the subsequent interferences by the Bhoodan Board after this resolution are invalid in itself and against the law and Justice whatsoever."
4. The letter of the Bhoodan Yagna Board dated 16.01.2006 is also appended to the said counter affidavit wherein it is specifically informed by the Board to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial that the lands in question do not belong to the Board and are 'Sevashram Lands' of Sri Gopal Rao Dandekar.
5. It is also to be noticed that alleging disobedience of the interim order, passed in these writ petitions, CC.No.1941 of 2014 was filed wherein a separate counter affidavit was filed by the respondents stating that there is no interference on their part and taking note thereof, the said contempt case was disposed on 11.12.2015.
6. In the light of the counter affidavit, extracted above and the letter of the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, referred to above, the lands, in question, apparently do not belong to the Bhoodan Yagna Board, as they themselves are not claiming the said lands. Even otherwise, WP.No.2674 of 2007 was already dismissed by this Court on 13.02.2007. In view of that, I do not see any cause for apprehension of the petitioners alleging interference by the revenue authorities on the aforesaid ground that the lands belong to the Bhoodan Yagna Board.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere or dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands except after following due process of law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 27, 2016 DSK