Mohammed Abdul Rahman S/O. Late Mohammed Abdul Razak, v. The State Of Telangana Rep.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 26918 of 2015 BETWEEN Mohammed Abdul Rahman ... PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 31.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:-

Heard.

2. Petitioner made a complaint dated 29.01.2015 to the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) complaining of encroachment of his patta land by the Tahsildar, the Village Revenue Officer (VRO), the Sarpanch, and certain auto drivers of Shameerpet village, which is part of survey No.1248 of Shameerpet Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Said complaint was also filed before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, on which the Commissioner called for a report from the Collector. On the said report, the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy from the office of the Collector, Ranga Reddy under his letter dated 03.02.2015, called for a detailed factual report from the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar is stated to have submitted a report under letter No.B/526/2015 dated 05.05.2015. However, that being not satisfactory, the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Protection, called for a further detailed comprehensive report together with photographs and also issued another reminder calling upon the Tahsildar to submit detailed report by 20.08.2015.

3. Learned government pleader states that the detailed report stands submitted by the Tahsildar to the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Protection, Ranga Reddy District, and the matter is pending with the said third respondent. Meanwhile, alleging that the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner from his patta land in various survey numbers to each extent, as set out in the prayer, inclusive of Ac.0-18 guntas in survey No.1284, the present writ petition is filed.

4. On 24.08.2015 while issuing notice to government pleader to get instructions, it was directed that no action either of dispossession or demolition be taken up on the petitioner's land as stated in the prayer.

5. Today, learned government pleader has received instructions from the fourth respondent, who states that the land in survey No.1284 of Shameerpet Village is a demarcated government land admeasuring Ac.1-18 gutnas and is presently vacant. It is also stated that total extent of survey No.1284 is Ac.76-05 guntas and its break up is as follows:

1. APSRTC : Ac. 6-00 Gts

2. ZPHS, Shamirpet : Ac. 3-00 Gts

3. Forest Department (Deer Park) : Ac.37-05 Gts

4. Under Agri. Encroachment of Assignees : Ac.12-36 Gts

5. AP Tourism : Ac.12-03 Gts

6. Vacant : Ac. 1-18 Gts

7. Effected in Black top road : Ac. 3-23 Gts Petitioner's claim for Ac.18-00 in survey No.1284 is stated to be covered by Ac.1-18 guntas of the Government land, as aforesaid, and the possession of the petitioner is denied. It is also stated that petitioner's application for regularization of said Ac.18-00 under GO Ms.No.59 is pending enquiry.

6. It is evident from the above and the learned government pleader also states that to the extent of the patta land, as claimed by the petitioner, the respondents have no concern and they are only concerned with Ac.0-18 guntas. In any case, since the detailed report of the Tahsildar is stated to be pending with regard to survey No.1284, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the third respondent and the second respondent-District Collector to examine petitioner's complaint in the light of the report of the Tahsildar and then issue appropriate directions, as called for, particularly with regard to Ac.0-18 guntas of land claimed by the petitioner in survey No.1284. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 31, 2015 LMV