M. Ashok v. The State Of Telangana, And 5 Others

Date: 5.11.2019 Between :

M.Ashok Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (LA) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.

Respondents This court made the following :

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.

2.

Petitioner clams to be absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.169 in T.S.Nos.8 and 9, BlockJ, Ward-18, situated at Langer House village, Hyderabad along with M.Advaiah and 16 others as per the proceedings of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad in Proceeding No.B1/30/90 dated 29.3.1993 and Proceedings in Case No.B/762/1992 dated 19.1.1993 and 20.1.1993. The averment in the affidavit discloses that since two years the Rajaka community people have encroached part of land and used the same for their community purpose and later they formed "Telangana Rajaka Abhivrudhi Samstha" and made a representation to the 2nd respondent to allot the said land for their purpose. According to the petitioner, on 4.5.

2019, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent-District Collector along with the report giving all misleading versions regarding the status of land and based on the said report, steps are being taken now to allot piece of land to Rajaka community which is in their possession and in such case, grave injustice and prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. 3.

The prayer in the writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in submitting false and vague report before 2nd respondent in collusion with 6th respondent and trying to issue proceedings in favour of 6th respondent. In other words, as of now no

decision is taken by the competent authority with regard to allotment of land to 6th respondent. This writ petition is filed questioning the report of the Mandal Surveyor. The report is an internal correspondence and final decision is yet to be taken by the competent authority. Thus, the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies, as available under law, if any adverse decision is made. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J Date: 5.11.2019 DA

5.11.2019