TUMA PEDDI REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-writ petitioners have filed the present writ appeal questioning the order, dated 01.09.2020, passed by a learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.8135 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the interim application filed by them seeking to modify the order of status quo, dated 12.06.2020, passed in the writ petition, to that of directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the agricultural lands in Survey No.665/1,2,3, to an extent of Ac.5.35 guntas, and in Survey No.537, to an extent of Ac.1.02 gutnas, situated at Bodhantharfa Bellal Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

(2.) On 21.09.2020, Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted before this Court that the standing crop in the subject property has been cultivated by the appellants-writ petitioners and therefore, the status quo order needs to be modified, so as to permit the appellants-writ petitioners to harvest the standing crop to reap the benefit. However, Mr. Mirza Safiullah Baig, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7, claimed that there is no evidence to show that the appellants-writ petitioners are in possession of the subject property. Therefore, this Court directed the Tahsildar, Bodhan, to conduct a physical inspection of the subject land and to submit his report on the twin issues of whether the crop is actually standing on the subject property or not, and who has cultivated the crop?

(3.) In pursuance of the said order, on 07.10.2020, the Tahsildar, Bodhan, had submitted his report dated 22.09.2020, stating that the standing paddy crop has been raised on the subject land by the Masjeed e Nade Ali Committee, Bodhan, through a tenant farmer, namely Sri Arif Jani, S/o.Yousuf Jani, who is a resident of Bodhan. Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, also filed his objections to this report stating that the Tahsildar, Bodhan, has colluded with the Masjeed e Nade Ali Committee, and the appellants-writ petitioners were not given any prior notice before conducting the inspection of the subject property.