GORIGA BHIMSEN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claim that they are absolute owners and in possession of agricultural lands in Muktapur village, Pochampally mandal, Nalgonda district (Now Yadadri Bhongir district) in various extents in different survey numbers as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, their lands are in low-laying areas and for the purpose of proper utilisation of said land, petitioners have levelled certain portions of their lands. Responding to certain complaints of the villagers, particularly fishermen making a false allegation that petitioners were obstructing free flow of water to their lands, without following due process of law, respondents 3 and 4 have removed major portion of levelling of land made by the petitioners, damaging the standing crops; the objections raised by the petitioners were not considered and even the complaint to the District Collector, was not acted upon. Alleging that on account of the actions of the respondent authorities, the private patta lands and standing crops were damaged causing lot of hardship and suffering to the petitioners, this writ petition is instituted.

(2.) Petitioners prayed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in removing major portion of levelling the land as well as damaging the petitioners patta lands without due process as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere in the occupation and enjoyment of their lands. By order dated 27.7.2016 this Court directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date, while adjourning the matter by two weeks to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. The said order was extended from time to time. Opposing the claim of the petitioners and contending that petitioners have deliberately laid bund obstructing the free flow of water and trenching into the village tank, occupying the village tank, respondents justified the steps taken in the larger interest of the villagers and sought for vacation of the interim order of status quo granted by this Court. Petitioners filed reply, denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit.

(3.) When the vacate stay petition was taken up for consideration, counsel representing both sides have agreed for disposal of the writ petition itself finally.