MOHAMMED BARKATH ALI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 the Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad District, in not delivering possession of his property bearing Municipal Nos.5-7- 232/A and 5/7/233 admeasuring 558.5 and 870 square yards of lands, totalling to 1,428.5 square yards situated at Aghapura, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad and not incorporating his name in the records particularly the Town Survey Land Register pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. No.21906 of 2011 dtd. 1/12/2015.

(2.) The background facts of the case are that W.P. No.21906 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner challenging the eviction order passed by respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.D/1231/2007 dtd. 4/3/2011 under Sec. 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short 'Land Encroachment Act') as confirmed by the order of respondent No.3 - the Special Grade Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, in Appeal No.B/434/2011 dtd. 27/7/2011 under Sec. 10(1)(a) of the Land Encroachment Act. Consequential relief was sought in the said writ petition to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that when W.P.M.P. No.266801 of 2011 in W.P. No.21906 of 2011 came up for hearing, as the learned Government Pleader represented that the Government has already taken over the subject land, this Court passed an order directing the respondents not to change nature of the subject property. W.P. No.21906 of 2011 was allowed by the order dtd. 1/12/2015. Challenging the same, W.A. No.1363 of 2017 was preferred by the respondents - Government and the same was disposed of by this Court by the judgment dtd. 21/3/2018 confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, however, on the request of the Government, status quo was directed to be maintained for a period of four (4) months therefrom enabling the Government to file a civil suit, if they so choose. It appears that even by the time the present writ petition was instituted, no suit was instituted by the respondents. However, Memo dtd. 28/3/2019 was filed by the petitioner enclosing a copy of the order in I.A. No.2952 of 2018 in O.S. No.756 of 2018 dtd. 19/2/2019, whereby injunction application filed by the respondents was dismissed.